Today after church, a small group from my Bible study class all went out to lunch together, as usual. We have such a fun time and sometimes some really interesting conversations come up. This afternoon we touched very briefly on a subject that really got me thinking.... the topic: prisoners rights.
My immediate and rather cold hearted opinion was that prisoners should not be allowed to have many rights. I actually even used a bad word during this discussion (shame on me) because I got all fired up over the whole thing. One of the things we were talking about specifically was access to the internet. I said that I don't think that people who are in prison should have any access to the internet at all. A friend of mine who was sitting across from me (and who is probably a much nicer person than I am) said that she thinks there is a big difference in what should be allowed, depending on the crime. She used Martha Stewart as an example. I stated that I feel that even Martha Stewart should not have been allowed access to the internet while she was in prison, and that if she needed or wanted to write to someone that she could have used a pen and a paper. My friend looked at me like I was mean, and then also went on to bring up the topic of people who are accused and convicted of crimes they actually did not commit. Of course that got me to thinking about what it would be like if I were in that situation-where I was in a prison for a crime I did not commit, and I wanted to have access to the internet to research or whatever, and try to help myself or to help my attorney to help me. Then also, what about those that choose to represent themselves? Don't they need to have access to books and case histories, and other reference materials?
How does that sort of thing work, in reality? DO prisoners have access to the internet, and if so, at what level? Are there restrictions as to which sites they can visit? If they are allowed to send personal emails, then does someone monitor the content before the message can be sent? I would assume so, and in many cases, I would hope so. I just finished reading a book full of case studies, and one was about a man who had been sentenced to life in prison, possibly even the death sentence, and he managed to arrange for a "hit" on the widow of the man he had been sentenced for killing, just purely out of meanness, and in an attempt to gain something small financially. If he had not had access to other prisoners, who in turn had access to other people on the outside of the prison, this wouldn't have been possible. If he were forced to sit in a small room, on his own, with no communication with other people, this wouldn't have happened. So, which is the right way to go with this?
Another friend who was at the same lunch today sat and looked rather thoughtful but didn't have much to say about it, although I could see the wheels turning. When I got to thinking about it and realized that really, my original answer probably isn't the right one, I pointed out that I did end up feeling badly about it, and that it really isn't such a black and white matter, that friend said "It's really complicated". He sure hit the nail on the head with that one, and I was left to wonder what he was thinking on a more specific level. I mean, really.... it is complicated. There are so many different ways that this could be managed, and then in turn, mismanaged.
What are YOUR opinions? What rights should prisoners have, and at what levels? How should these things be enforced and managed? It is a very interesting topic, one with many different angles and jagged little edges. I'm curious as to what you all think and I look forward to your responses!
On another note altogether...... who among you uses facial moisturizer? I have been thinking it over, and I realize that I have never taken really good care of my skin. I really don't want to turn into a leather face at the age of 40, so, ladies, help me out! Which kinds do you use? And how often?
Recent Comments