Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Bronx Legislators Push To Hold Incarcerated Parents Closer to Children

Ed Krayewski | 4.6.2012 3:37 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Two Bronx legislators want to establish a pilot program that would let 60 parents be incarcerated near their minor children, reports the New York Daily News. New York State's Department of Corrections doesn't factor in parenthood when assigning inmates to prisons, even though 73 percent of female inmates are moms.

According to the Women's Prison Association's Institute on Women & Criminal Justice, drug offenses make up about 28% of the female state prison population nationwide, with nearly 2/3 of women in state prison there for non-violent offenses. Why focus on mothers? Department of Justice statisticians report incarcerated mothers are more than two and a half times more likely than fathers to have been head of a single parent household prior to their incarceration.

While New York State's prison population has declined over the last decade, the Daily News suggests transferring inmates downstate to be closer to their children could be politically problematic because of upstate politicians who want to keep prisons, and, crucially, prison staff (jobs!) upstate, even when the inmates (most of them, given the denser population) are from downstate.

The New York State prison system is routinely managed as a jobs program, a symptom of government engaging in spending as policymaking. So while the war on drugs is touted as an 'absolutely critical' investment that only Social Darwinists would oppose, doing something humane for incarcerated parents and, more importantly, their children, gets tied up in regional politics.  

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Katherine Mangu-Ward Talks Happy Meal Toys and Lawsuits on Fox Business Network

Ed Krayewski is a former associate editor at Reason.

PoliticsCivil LibertiesWar on DrugsNanny StateJobsNew YorkPrisonsDrugsParenting
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (25)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Apatheist ?_??   13 years ago

    Sexist!

  2. OC in DC   13 years ago

    Who cares if they care closer? Will it cost less or will it cost more? If it costs less fine, but if it costs more hell no. If we could save by holding people in a dark cell and they’d never see their kids that would be a waste.

    The drug war should be stopped because it costs too much, jails cost too much as well. But let’s be honest, this movement is first and foremost about lowering taxes.

    1. Pound. Head. On. Desk.   13 years ago

      But let’s be honest, this movement is first and foremost about lowering taxes.

      Then count me out. I’d even take simpler taxes over lower ones. While I was in business, tax preparation took a considerable chunk of time away from my life. Further, I’d be happy if they just left people alone to do things that don’t hurt other people. Why do I care if my neighbor cuts down his tree or paints his trim a new color? Why should he care I have a garden with vegetables or flowers? And what business is it of anybody’s if I pay for healthcare by cash, check, charge or insurance?

      1. Scruffy Nerfherder   13 years ago

        You just hate the children, you monocled libertine.

    2. Zeb   13 years ago

      What?

  3. OC in DC   13 years ago

    Who cares if they care closer? Will it cost less or will it cost more? If it costs less fine, but if it costs more hell no. If we could save by holding people in a dark cell and they’d never see their kids that would be a waste.

    The drug war should be stopped because it costs too much, jails cost too much as well. But let’s be honest, this movement is first and foremost about lowering taxes.

    1. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

      Lowering taxes is a means to the end of respecting the liberty of people to do as they wish.

      This movement is first and foremost about not telling people what to do, and that includes not telling them what they believe and why.

    2. KPres   13 years ago

      “The drug war should be stopped because it costs too much”

      The Socialist Chinese used to take heroin addicts out and shoot them in the back of the head. Think about how cheap that is!

      Just sayin’, when it comes to drugs, the principle is more important than the money.

      1. Pound. Head. On. Desk.   13 years ago

        Have you bought ammo lately?

      2. OC in DC   13 years ago

        I’d be fine with that. Just as long as we don’t have to pay for it.

        Less taxes, less regulations, less bullshit consumer safety, less having to pay when people get sick. Kill the social safety net, income inequality is a feature and a great thing here.

        1. Groovus Maximus   13 years ago

          I detect more than a hint of disingenuous performance snark here. And, not surprisingly, the scent of Mc Ribs.

  4. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

    Don’t forget folks, the Police State is a double solution to the economic problem. No only does it provide jobs/stimulus to guards, cops, and the various vendors who supply them, it also takes those unsightly unemployed undesirable criminal scum off the streets.

    More importantly, once those reprobates are out of prison and unemployable, they don’t count against the jobless rate because they’re not technically looking for work.

    1. Scruffy Nerfherder   13 years ago

      Send more cops…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLSL8E-FLrQ

    2. Pound. Head. On. Desk.   13 years ago

      No only does it provide jobs/stimulus to guards, cops, and the various vendors who supply them, it also takes those unsightly unemployed undesirable criminal scum off the streets.

      Dude! The cops don’t like it when you call them “unsightly unemployed undesirable criminal scum.”

  5. Randian   13 years ago

    I am going to be “that guy”, but it galls me that parenthood is somehow more governmentally favored than any other chosen social relationship. Did you have a baby? Here’s a month of paid-for maternity leave (and a week of paternity leave in some jurisdictions). Here’s a child tax credit. Here’s free schooling baby-sitting services. Here’s consideration for your prison sentence.

    Wait, you’re single or a married but childless and you want to go to a concert/friend’s wedding/wine-tasting? Go fuck yourself.

    1. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

      Wait, you’re single or a married but childless and you want to go to a concert/friend’s wedding/wine-tasting? Go fuck yourself.

      Well, at least you’ll never have to change a stinky diaper! So you got that going for you, which is pretty good.

    2. Virginian   13 years ago

      Idealistic view is that children are the real reason we have civilization in the first place, and it takes a village, etc etc.

      Cynical view says the tax leeches need new taxpayers so the gravy train won’t stop.

      You can pick which one you prefer.

  6. Groovus Maximus   13 years ago

    So, should we start a pool to see which buzzword, “Access” or “Social Darwinist” gets more abused, maligned and distorted during this election year?

    I’m laying 7:10 odds it will be “Access”.

    1. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

      Yeah, Social Darwinist will be pretty quickly abandoned once internet lefties are laughed out of court for propagating it.

    2. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

      Well, I think the list needs to be expanded, perhaps to 32 words. Seeded into a bracket, and then we play the bracket. The word which is more abused, maligned and distorted during each week of the election cycle wins it’s matchup that week, and advances to the next round. We could use the NY Times as the paper of record.

      I would like to add these words to the tournament:

      Fair Share
      Grown Ups
      Opportunity
      Advancement
      Hard Choices
      Civility
      Equitable

      1. R C Dean   13 years ago

        Working Hard
        Reach Out
        Hard-Working Families
        War On _________

        1. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

          Change
          Hope

        2. R C Dean   13 years ago

          Lying Cocksucker.
          Thieving Ratfucker.
          Pandering Whore.
          Syphilitic Camel.

          Or maybe those are for a different contest.

      2. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

        Values
        Shared Values
        Small Businesses
        Main Street
        Wall Street

  7. Malcolm Kyle   13 years ago

    An appeal to all Prohibitionists:

    We simply cannot continue with a policy that has proven itself to be a poison in the veins of practically every free nation on this planet. Even if you cannot bear the thought of people using drugs, there is absolutely nothing you, or any government, can do to stop them. We have spent 40 years and trillions of dollars on this dangerous farce; Prohibition will not suddenly and miraculously start showing different results.

    Do you actually believe you may personally have something to lose If we were to begin basing drug policy on science & logic instead of ignorance, hate and lies? Maybe you’re a police officer, a prison guard or a local/national politician. Possibly you’re scared of losing employment, overtime-pay, the many kick-backs and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?

    You may find lies easier to tell, but they do nothing to prevent the existence of truth, they do nothing to help you sleep at night, and they do absolutely nothing to help those who depend on you for their safety and health.

    Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engendered mayhem!

    Prohibition Prevents Regulation : Legalize, Regulate and Tax!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

As American as Due Process

Billy Binion | From the July 2025 issue

How Tariffs Are Breaking the Manufacturing Industries Trump Says He Wants To Protect

Eric Boehm | From the July 2025 issue

The Latest Escalation Between Russia and Ukraine Isn't Changing the Course of the War

Matthew Petti | 6.6.2025 4:28 PM

Marsha Blackburn Wants Secret Police

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.6.2025 3:55 PM

This Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs

Eric Boehm | 6.6.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!