Father outraged over killer's temporary release

[Bill]

In a dramatic turnaround, the state’s top public safety official has ordered the prison system to reverse its decision to allow one of little Jeffrey Curley’s killers out of prison to attend a funeral service for his father.

The state is also reviewing the policy that allows cons to be let out of prison - with an escort - for funerals.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...icleid=1198140

The prisoner involved was convicted of second-degree murder; I seem to remember that convicted first-degree murderers (who are not eligible for parole) are not eligible for this type of leave.

The crime was so atrocious that it led to calls to bring back the death penalty.

This leads to an interesting question whether a murderer should, years later, be allowed out for a family member's funeral, or perhaps let out to see a sick parent.

Thanks.

Bill

[Mickey Blue]

To see a sick parent.. Maybe.. But a funeral? No, why should they? They are in there to be punished.

-MB

[Bill]

Update: The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections reversed the decision and the murderer will not be allowed to attend the funeral. The victim's father believes that this is due to the "media attention."

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...icleid=1198140

Thanks.

Bill

[Menolly]

Wow, what a relief for the deceased boy's family members.

[Winged Monkey]

Originally Posted by Bill

Update: The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections reversed the decision and the murderer will not be allowed to attend the funeral. The victim's father believes that this is due to the "media attention."

How wonderful, will all prisoners be prevented from supervised releases for funerals now, or will this just apply to specific media friendly crimes?

-Winged Monkey

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Winged Monkey

How wonderful, will all prisoners be prevented from supervised releases for funerals now, or will this just apply to specific media friendly crimes?

-Winged Monkey

What is the harm caused by allowing a prisoner to attend a parent's funeral, granted, of course, the flight risk is low/non-existent?

I know we as a nation like to treat prisoners as if they are less than human, and, while this man's actions were horrible, he is still a human being.

[Winged Monkey]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

What is the harm caused by allowing a prisoner to attend a parent's funeral, granted, of course, the flight risk is low/non-existent?

I know we as a nation like to treat prisoners as if they are less than human, and, while this man's actions were horrible, he is still a human being.

Oh now you mentioned that prisoners aren't all cartoon monsters, why'd you have to do that? - I'm uncomfortable now.

I suppose the harm is that the parents, family, loved ones, congresspeople and or pets of victims get outraged. Outrage of course being our society's current favored way of dealing with things that make us uncomfortable.

If my sarcasm wasn't fully clear above, I will say as a person who is all out of empathy, I don't really care about either the prisoner's grief or the outrage of the father. I do care that a system our society has in place as generally applicable (supervised prisoner release) has been fiddled with because of some whiny individual's personal annoyance. As I have said before, this sort of thing is especially dangerous in issues of crime and punishment -- there are very good and sound reasons, based on long historical experience why crime is punished by the sovereign based on a metric independent of victim's individual desires for revenge.

-Winged Monkey

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Winged Monkey

I suppose the harm is that the parents, family, loved ones, congresspeople and or pets of victims get outraged. Outrage of course being our society's current favored way of dealing with things that make us uncomfortable.

I'm curious how the information was ever leaked out in the first place. It wouldn't seem like something DOC would advertise.

[rhiandmoi]

IMO, when you commit a crime you forfeit certain privileges. Like being able to visit sick family members or attend funerals that might occur during your period of incarceration.

I wonder what the 7 denied inmates did that was *worse* than child rape, murder, and desecration of the body to cause them to be denied.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

IMO, when you commit a crime you forfeit certain privileges.

I agree.

Like being able to visit sick family members or attend funerals that might occur during your period of incarceration.

But why this specific one? To turn it back around to the question the way I asked it, what harm is done to grant this tiny bit of grace?

I wonder what the 7 denied inmates did that was *worse* than child rape, murder, and desecration of the body to cause them to be denied.

It might not have had to do with the nature of the crime.

[rhiandmoi]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

But why this specific one? To turn it back around to the question the way I asked it, what harm is done to grant this tiny bit of grace?

I don't really have an opinion on this particular inmate. But to me it isn't about harm or benefit. This person is incarcerated, emergency release is a privilege that they need to earn, and IMO earning it starts with considering the nature of their original crime. If I were a judge evaluating a request for emergency release, I hope I would be allowed to consider the nature of the original crime, the inmates demonstrated remorse at hir crimes, hir behavior and demeanor while incarcerated, the amount of time left on the original sentence, the relationship with the ill or deceased, etc. When you commit crimes and are incarcerated, sometimes you miss out on really important life events. That's life.

[Winged Monkey]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

IMO, when you commit a crime you forfeit certain privileges. Like being able to visit sick family members or attend funerals that might occur during your period of incarceration.

I wonder what the 7 denied inmates did that was *worse* than child rape, murder, and desecration of the body to cause them to be denied.

Ahh - Yes the purely punitive theory for justice, it's very popular these days. Seriously though, these sort of supervised temporary releases are part of our criminal justice system. In this case it appears that an individual had met whatever requirements exist to be granted such a release, which was then reversed because of the complaints of someone outside the system who shouted loud enough. Other murdering, body desecrating child rapists who meet the criteria still get these releases I would assume...

As to what other then media outrage and attention might get one denied such a release? My suspicion is that risk of flight and disciplinary actions in prison would be the primary elements in determining if supervised release is granted.

-Winged Monkey

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

I don't really have an opinion on this particular inmate.

Sorry; I meant why this specific privilege.

But to me it isn't about harm or benefit.

[snip]

When you commit crimes and are incarcerated, sometimes you miss out on really important life events. That's life.

See, and to me, it is very important that society retains its collective humanity, even toward people who have committed crimes against it. I don't think that supervised release should be used to make an emergency Run For the Border(tm), but for a singular experience like the funeral of the parent, I think that we should think long and hard about the benefit to the inmate vs. the harm to society is caused by granting such a thing.

[BringTheNoise]

If you let our prisoners in cases like this, you'll encourage other people to kill children knowing that they can get out for a couple of hours if one of their parent's dies. Or something.

[rhiandmoi]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

Sorry; I meant why this specific privilege.


See, and to me, it is very important that society retains its collective humanity, even toward people who have committed crimes against it. I don't think that supervised release should be used to make an emergency Run For the Border(tm), but for a singular experience like the funeral of the parent, I think that we should think long and hard about the benefit to the inmate vs. the harm to society is caused by granting such a thing.

I feel this way about all privileges available to the inmate population from something as small as having a television in their cell to early release. I don't think it is unreasonable for inmates to be granted emergency release (or to have tvs, or early release), but I think a lot of factors need to be considered before granting privileges, which the actual benefit to the inmate should be one of them, but not the only one.

[RivkahChaya]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

See, and to me, it is very important that society retains its collective humanity, even toward people who have committed crimes against it. I don't think that supervised release should be used to make an emergency Run For the Border(tm), but for a singular experience like the funeral of the parent, I think that we should think long and hard about the benefit to the inmate vs. the harm to society is caused by granting such a thing.

I also think that it's important to consider what it might mean to the inmate's family-- siblings, other parent, maybe-- to have him at the funeral. Maybe they have washed their hands of him. Maybe they don't exist. But if they would be comforted by his presence for a few hours, I don't see why that shouldn't be permitted, and the family, after all, didn't participate in a crime (well, they could have in this case-- I don't know-- I have switched to speaking in generalities now, thank you).

But also, as I've said in other threads, I'm very much against victims dictating details of a perptrators punishment. That's really not supposed to be how the system works.

[rhiandmoi]

Originally Posted by RivkahChaya

I also think that it's important to consider what it might mean to the inmate's family-- siblings, other parent, maybe-- to have him at the funeral. Maybe they have washed their hands of him. Maybe they don't exist. But if they would be comforted by his presence for a few hours, I don't see why that shouldn't be permitted, and the family, after all, didn't participate in a crime (well, they could have in this case-- I don't know-- I have switched to speaking in generalities now, thank you).

But also, as I've said in other threads, I'm very much against victims dictating details of a perptrators punishment. That's really not supposed to be how the system works.

According to the article, the inmate is escorted to the funeral home for a private viewing and does not participate in the funeral with the rest of the family.

[starfury]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

According to the article, the inmate is escorted to the funeral home for a private viewing and does not participate in the funeral with the rest of the family.

That doesn't mean that the rest of the family can not gain some comfort from knowing that he had the chance to be present, say his last regards etc.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

If you let our prisoners in cases like this, you'll encourage other people to kill children knowing that they can get out for a couple of hours if one of their parent's dies. Or something.

Killer released for parent's funeral... and guess who's paying?

[JoeBentley]

I really don't get this. He's in prison. Why is letting him leave even a discussion?

It's not a matter of it hurting anything, its simply a matter of not being able to leave is what makes prison a punishment.