User:Ptystinone/sandbox

Compassionate Release
Compassionate release deals with the early release of prisoners who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, and mental illness, that would greatly benefit from positive care outside of what the prison system would be able to offer.

Arguments for compassionate release generally deal with the benefit to ill prisoners as well as cost savings to the state. A major concern for prison inmates is terminal illness which would require special care or treatment for the subject. These illnesses can greatly shorten the lifespan of the subject while he or she is in prison. It is estimated that the United States would save $5-8 million per year from releasing 100 people on compassionate release per year. This translates into a large cost savings that a government would benefit from if using compassionate release. Interestingly, those who are released on compassionate release have a lower tendency to recommit crime. This unexpected figure (only 3-4% of compassionate release subjects are rearrested) allows the argument for compassionate release to counter the argument of relapse by a criminal.

On the other hand, the main argument against compassionate release deals with the reintroduction of criminals into society. The said reintroduction could bring criminals who were previously removed from society back into a place where they would be free to commit crimes. Compassionate release relies on good faith, requiring that the released criminals do not continue committing crimes after they have been released. This is often difficult to accomplish. A questionnaire study by Jennifer Boothby and Lorraine Overduin on attitudes over compassionate release suggested that people show negative attitudes towards the compassionate release of prisoners; however, the fear of AIDS had no correlation with the results. This suggests that the community’s negative attitudes toward compassionately released prisoners could be an obstacle towards those seeking to be compassionately released, and that there is a negative attitude in communities over mingling with criminals who have committed crimes meriting time potentially up to life sentences. Another argument against compassionate release is concern over justice for time served. For those that were placed in prison justifiably, the question arises of how long they should be forced to serve for their crimes before they are allowed access to their community for health and support.

Compassionate release is a topic that is debated as an important subject for United States prisoners. Deciding how to implement compassionate release laws requires looking at both sides of the picture--the criminal, and their community. These arguments become significant because of the current compassionate release system in many states, which vary significantly over details such as the life expectancy that warrants compassionate release (a detail that can vary from between 6 to 12 months and take 65 days to determine in court). Such discrepancies create major variations in the decisions that govern individual cases that make it difficult to create an overarching compassionate release legislation in any state or country.

Another major roadblock to the implementation of compassionate release is its reliance on medical trial. Because the criteria for compassionate release is, by necessity, dependent on medicine and doctors, individual medical professionals have a high amount of power in determining each compassionate release case. Because of the high variation among individual medical professionals, the high variation that is translated into each decision is a major issue in many of the current compassionate release systems. The unreliability of current systems of compassionate release is a common flaw that hinders compassionate release reform.

Compassionate Release
Pretend that everything after this sentence is part of the Compassionate Release article as opposed to the Alternatives to Incarceration file.

Arguments
Compassionate release is a topic that is debated as an important subject for United States prisoners. Deciding how to implement compassionate release laws requires looking at both sides of the picture--the criminal, and their community. These arguments become significant because of the current compassionate release system in many states, which vary significantly over details such as the life expectancy that warrants compassionate release (a detail that can vary from between 6 to 12 months and take 65 days to determine in court). Such discrepancies create major variations in the decisions that govern individual cases that make it difficult to create an overarching compassionate release legislation in any state or country.

Another major roadblock to the implementation of compassionate release is its reliance on medical trial. Because the criteria for compassionate release is, by necessity, dependent on medicine and doctors. Because of the high variation among individual medical professionals, the high variation that is translated into each decision is a major issue in many of the current compassionate release systems. The unreliability of current systems of compassionate release is a common flaw that hinders compassionate release reform.

For
Arguments for compassionate release generally fall into two categories. One argument is for the well-being and happiness of the person being considered for compassionate release as well as their relatives. The second is the cost savings associated with releasing inmates before their sentence is over.

A major concern for prison inmates is terminal illness which would require special care or treatment for the subject. These illnesses, including but not limited to cancer, HIV/AIDS, and mental illness, can greatly shorten the lifespan of the subject while he or she is in prison.

It is estimated that the United States would save $5-8 million per year from releasing 100 people on compassionate release per year. This translates into a large cost savings that a government would benefit from if using compassionate release.

Interestingly, those who are released on compassionate release have a lower tendency to recommit crime. This unexpected figure (only 3-4% of compassionate release subjects are rearrested) allows the argument for compassionate release to counter the argument of relapse by a criminal.

Against
The main argument against compassionate release deals with the reintroduction of criminals into society. The said reintroduction could bring criminals who were previously removed from society back into a place where they would be free to commit crimes. Compassionate release relies on good faith, requiring that the released criminals do not continue committing crimes after they have been released. This is often difficult to accomplish.

A questionnaire study by Jennifer Boothby and Lorraine Overduin on attitudes over compassionate release suggested that people show negative attitudes towards the compassionate release of prisoners; however, the fear of AIDS had no correlation with the results. This suggests that the community’s negative attitudes toward compassionately released prisoners could be an obstacle towards those seeking to be compassionately released, and that there is a negative attitude in communities over mingling with criminals who have committed crimes meriting time potentially up to life sentences.

Another argument against compassionate release is concern over justice for time served. For those that were placed in prison justifiably, the question arises of how long they should be forced to serve for their crimes before they are allowed access to their community for health and support.

Other options
For prisoners suffering from terminal illnesses, other options include programs that distribute health materials and segregation of affected individuals. Both of these options have their own pros and cons, the most notable of which is the lack of proper care offered by either one. However, both options would keep people in prison, which is an option that compassionate release would never allow.

Compassionate release in the United States
Obtaining a compassionate release for a prison inmate is a process that varies from state to state but generally involves petitioning a court that the subject is terminally ill and would benefit from obtaining aid outside of the prison system. This process has been criticized in multiple states for being highly subjective on a case-by-case basis, relying heavily on specific doctor's opinions and not having clear-cut guidelines as to what defines a patient eligible for compassionate release. This often results in calls for reform, fueled by statistics regarding the rate of compassionate release and the illnesses of the patients who do not receive it.

Wisconsin
Wisconsin's compassionate release law allows those on life sentence to petition a standard court for medical parole on the basis of a diagnosis from a medical authority in the court. Due to an overhaul in the early 2000s, the compassionate release law was changed to create a more accurate review for the petitioner and allow for better chances at compassionate release.

New York
In New York, Regional Medical Units (RMUs) are often set up within prisons to aid with terminally ill prisoners; however, these RMUs often do not provide as much care as an ill patient might receive outside of a prison. New York is criticized for having a compassionate release system that is more restrictive than that of the other States, and allows for, on average, fewer compassionate release subjects than the rest of the United States.