By Just A Guy
The debate rages around the “early” releases of 19,000 non-violent/non-serious offenders and turning over to the custody of the Feds another 19,000 illegal immigrants, for a total of 38,000 releases. There have been myriad articles and opinion pieces written around this, but not too many represent our — that is, the inmates’ — side of the story, nor are many inmate voices being heard around this issue. So I happily volunteer mine.
There is an editorial in the Marysville Appeals-Democrat that I find very interesting and that I agree with to some degree, but there are areas in this editorial which need to be addressed because it seems as if editorials like this are legitimized and not thought through by the general reader.
The editorial claims that the state government has many purposes, one of the more legitimate purposes is to protect its people from criminals. It states, “Government has no inherent duty to medicate, educate, nurture or provide recreation for its citizens. But it is legitimately charged with protecting their rights to life, liberty and property.”
Is it just me or is the writer being a bit contradictory? To say that it’s government’s inherent duty to protect our right to life, but not an inherent duty to “medicate” is to say it’s only government’s inherent duty to use force to protect life and not medicine. Basically this writer is saying that government’s only duty is to keep people from hurting each other and taking one another’s property — that it’s not governmental responsibility to make sure someone who can’t afford life-saving medicine receives that medicine even if it’s protecting that life.
I am no proponent of big government and think that government is far too deeply inserted into our lives and everything we do, but to make a statement like that just bothers me. Someone will read it, not think about it beyond the first layer and next thing you know that statement has become a component of their belief system and they’re protesting in front of abortion clinics during the day and by night they’re protesting the anti-death penalty protesters.
The editorial also states:
“Whether criminals should be released before completing their sentences, or into federal custody to be deported, should not be determined by finances.”
Huh?
How can the writer possibly say this in the same editorial that says:
“Nevertheless, the state has run California’s prison system badly, with little regard for costs imposed on those supposedly being served, but with great concern for those paid to do the job.”