Pros And Cons Of Medical Parole

Medical Parole Judgements The decision of whether a prisoner should receive parole, even after the minimum time has been served, is difficult. A person who could potentially be a danger to society should never be released with lightheartedness, and that is doubly true when considering whether their medical condition is a sufficient reason for release. It is easy to see someone who is unwell as rehabilitated; empathy and sympathy often push people to think better of the sufferer. However, while research on parole generally favors leniency in most cases, a blanket judgement for each inmate is not an option that should be pursued. Doubtless, most will obey a similar pattern of behavior once released, but safety of others should be the first and

If medical release is often a success, such as the previous case suggests, then surely it is an option that should be considered often. Parole based on medical needs should not be affected by age if that is the case. However, mental faculties may be a far more important consideration. Dr. Ricki Barnett, a California doctor who is often consulted on the merits of medical parole stated that she is always very clear in her recommendations to parole boards whether the patient has salient mental function. If this is the case, the prisoner is likely to be turned down. “Steven Martinez, a 42-year-old rapist made quadriplegic in a prison fight. Dr. Barnett says she approved his MP application because he met the medical criterion of permanently medically incapacitated. But “I made sure to indicate on my application that he was awake, alert, oriented, high IQ, and capable of planning complex analytical thought,” she says. “That’s all I needed to write.” the parole board denied him on the grounds that he was mentally alert and could carry out threats using others as proxies.” When asked whether this system was right in doing this, Dr. Barnett answered in the affirmative (Barnett 2011,