This article hits home for me not because my mom was incarcerated, but because she was diagnosed with breast cancer when I was in primary school. Life is tough when you are growing up in the first place. You need someone to show you the ropes and teach you right from wrong and some kids don't get that care and support that they need which usually ends up as a troubled adult who isn't quite sure of what they should do or who they even are. When my mom was in the hospital receiving treatments and surgeries, I was in my classroom wondering why I haven't had some of moms good cooking in a while and wondering whos gonna be home when the day is over with. It is very challenging, especially at such a young age with the lack of understanding of what's going on or what might happen. I think when mothers become incarcerated, it's worse than a life sentence for them and the child. Don't get me wrong however. A crime is a crime no matter how minute or severe the charge is. There must be reparations to this kind of behavior so that it won't be committed again. The sad fact about this is that taking a kids mother away from them so she can learn her lesson is like throwing oil on fire. YEs, she will more than likely not commit the crime again, but now they have both missed out on biological bonding moments that help build who we are in the future. I do appreciate Washington's FOSA program that allows mothers to be monitored at home while still caring for their family and hopefully not wanting to ever do wrong again. It is a win for the corrections system, the taxpayers, the mother, and last but certainly not least, the children. GVFF007
I think that it's certainly interesting to have your perspective on the issue because you walk in the shoes of who this is intended to affect and I also find it interesting that you did accept that a crime is a crime and there has to be some form or punishment. I liked your analogy to oil on a fire and how it ultimately makes things worse. -TaxSeason007
I can totally agree with what you are saying. When your are child anything can make a strong impact on you as you become an adult and can make life very difficult for yourself. When I was younger, my mom and my dad was not in my life that much.. My mother still wanted to be a child and my father was in and out of jail a lot. Now that I am growing up to be an adult it has made an huge impact of my life. Since I did not get the love that I should have gotten from my parents. I search for love in all the wrong places. Smiles007
This is a very interesting perspective to take because it can be similar in ways. I do agree that many women should be able to connect with there children on a personally level instead of being out of the Childs life for a long period of time. But i also think that some women are in there for serious crimes and by taking them out of the Childs life could be more beneficial. It is an iffy situation because you want both love and safety for the child. Possible consider programs for the smaller crimes and maybe leave the bigger crimes alone and show a sense of responsibility for their consequences. -hollywood007
I agree, I also grew up without a mother and I landed in multiple foster homes! I never had a good connection or bond with my mother and I strongly believe that one is needed between mother and child! it is important for growth. Yes, some mothers are not the greatest but more than half of them deserve to be in their child's life even if it is only once or twice a week. Classes for these women would be taken seriously and would be very beneficial! -freckles007
I fell like this article really did miss the mark in my honest opinion. The closing remark states "reminding incarcerated mothers and fathers that a life without crime allows them to be around to see those precious first steps." though with the proposed changes the contrary would happen. The changes would allow people to commit crimes and still be able to have the ability to let them see their child's first steps. Though I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment the statement itself is a bit contradictory. As I was reading through this article my mind kept reeling in an oddly conservative manner, was this such a prevalent issue 50-70 years ago and if not why? Well it's safe to say that the culture has dramatically changed since then, especially when it comes to family planning. Today we tend to see people have children at younger ages because sex is a more commonplace and acceptable thing before marriage. We also see people intentionally planning to create a family without marriage. If we consider these and we also understand that people will age out of crime (meaning the older you are, the less likely you will be to live a criminal lifestyle) then I think that it is a fair assessment to say that we wouldn't have these issues that are at hand on such a broad scale if we encouraged people to wait until marriage to have sex or start a family. The culture shift will have repercussions and I think that's what we're seeing here in this article. I'm not one to tell people that their kid was born too soon in their life or to put the blame on them for any single action, but perhaps being more cautious or having a more conservative lens when such choices are made may not be so harmful when the only downside is a loss of instant gratification. -TaxSeason007
Actually, the average age where women are giving birth for the first time has gone up in recent decades due to education, but I agree that certain statements in this article were contradicting each other. Also, family without marriage isn't a bad thing because it is different from a few decades ago. Have you seen "Friends" ever? They had 3 of those types of story arcs. I do agree though that if the parent is being a bad influence on the child that they should not be allowed to have custody or visitation. -CAPMARVEL007
I can not really relate with this article but I do understand in somewhat how it feels to not have your mother in father in your life. To read about the article it make me very happy to see that mothers and father can get a second chance to be apart of their children life. Being their for a child does make a big impact in the life and it can reflect on how the child to an teenager to an adult life would be. It can be a good thing or a bad thing for a child growing up for myself not having either parents in my life while I was child and living with my grandparents. Going to school and hearing your fellow classmates talking about what they do at home with their mother or father it sadden me because I never got to feel how that felt. Even though my parents was not incarnated it kinda felt like that with them not being their. Mothers that are incarnated and that have children sees that and can start doing crimes when they become a teenager because they see their parent getting out of jail over and over again. At the same time it while having programs formulated to help parents still be in their child life while still have to punish for what they have done. Is a smart idea because it can help a child from growing up to not be incarnated also. Also they should pass something that will help incarnated parents to find a good paying job when they get out so they will not find them selves back into jail. And be able to support their household without having there felony hold them back. Smiles007
I totally agree with how you said that incarcerated parents should have a way to receive full time jobs once they are released. I feel like it would impact their lives in such a way that they forget about the wrong that they have done and focus on trying to resolve the issues between the children. It also serves as a way for them to provide for the families whether it be a steady income or the benefits that come along with such as the children's health and dental insurance. Kids just want support and I feel like this would make them idolize their parents much more.GVFF007
I agree that a program to help parents find full time jobs would be beneficial, however such a program would require there to be job opportunities available. You also have to remember that these parents are technically convicted, so even if they can find someone who is hiring they may be rejected as a result of their conviction. This program would have to look far and wide for businesses who are willing to overlook criminal charges. -Redranger007
I am very indifferent on this article based on I have never had personally experience with this in any shape or form. I do agree in the sense that a mother's time is very important to their children especially if she wants to create a bond with them. Mothering is one of the most important roles to a child's life and that you would want a mother to be present in any way they can. But in all reality is it still right in some cases. When a mother commits a crime there is multiple reasonings as the why this could have happened. If a women commits a small crime possibly stealing or drugs, I do believe there should be some type of program for mothers to still be involved in the child's life. I also see the other side of this by noting that many women are still incarcerated for bigger crimes and should take responsibility for what they did. Especially the most dangerous ones. Yes a mother's time is valuable and taken away could hurt the child but taking a possible dangerous women out of there life is more important than a little contact time. Bigger crimes such as murder are crimes that possibly the women may have not been thinking of her child and how this is going to affect their life and that is quite a dangerous flaw. From this article I could believe that 80% of women in jail are mothers. I can see that most of those crimes are petty crimes such as drugs. I believe those should be reconsider before they enter because they are mothers. Again I feel quite indifferent in this topic because of I could see both ways being efficient for the public. Mothers being in a child's life is important but are they showing them right from wrong and being great influencer is the question. -hollywood007
I agree with you when you say that mothering is one of the most important roles to a child’s life and a mother should be present in any way they can in their child’s life. During a child’s life, especially in their younger ages, needs their mother to be there for them. Mothers help play a vital role in the development of their child as they grow up. Without the presence of their mother, kids may struggle with certain things and be forced to go into the foster care system. I can’t imagine what it would be like to rarely be able to see my mom at a young age like eight or nine. -Fozz007
I definitely agree with you. There are plenty of women in this world that are roaming freely in this world with their children choice-fully due to not breaking the law or committing a serious crime. There are also a ton of women in this world that should be locked up and some women that already are and were just wrong place wrong time and now their kid has to suffer. It's absolutely horrible but it really is just the way the cookie crumbles. I could not imagine living without my mother now, and I need her just as much today as I did growing up. I would completely hate being behind bars having a child. I think every day it would drive me crazy. I also agree with your bigger crimes such as murder statement. It is extremely real and true. -notacop911
I am the type of person who believes that if you are willing to commit the crime, unless it is under life-or-death circumstances, you should have to do the sentence. Regardless of whether or not you are a parent breaking the law is still setting a bad example for your children. My only experience with something like this would be watching “This Is Us” with my mother, but a certain story arc should sit with people. In the show, a mother has been working full-time but has also been neglecting her time at home with her daughter by spending her free time and some of her “work time” with her latest boyfriend. The daughter decided to make dinner one night and ended up severely cutting her hand. Because her mom was not home when it happened, she went to the emergency room and had her injury treated. As you can probably guess, Child Services showed up and ended up taking the kid to a foster home. Mom later on went to rehab for a drug problem and when mom was cleared to get her kid back after completing rehab, she was fine and was a real mom, but only for two weeks. Her latest boyfriend had a gun in the mother’s car, mom was caught with it and went to jail. Several times the kid went back and forth between mom and foster homes because of her mother’s issues. Once someone has had these issues it is very hard to get rid of them. I believe that if they were not putting the child first that they should not get the child back after prison. I know that there are extenuating circumstances when it comes to these types of situations, but I believe that a child, regardless of their parents, should not be forced to grow up in the prison environment or with that shadowing them. It can be harmful to the child and they are at a much higher risk of committing those criminal acts when they get older. But this is just my opinion. -CAPMARVEL007
I like reading your point of view. I do agree that for some of these crimes if you do them you should do your time. I agree the mother at the end of the day is at fault for setting a bad example for their children. It is a tough topic to debate because of everyone's views, but I think its healthy to have these discussions. -CUBFAN007
This point of view is an interesting take. I can see why you would want the people to do the time for the crimes they have committed. Yet if you send they home it's not like they are totally free. What if they have an ankle monitor and are under house arrest so they are still confined to where they can travel or visit? They can still serve time, but nothing shows the effect like jail. very interesting! - Robocop007
I Agree with this, the mother is setting a bad example for her child. Not thinking about her child before she goes out and makes the decisions she made. And I honestly don’t like child services, but I feel as if the mother keeps making choices that she’s making and constantly going to jail, she shouldn’t get the child back because now her child has to witness the lifestyle that she’s making and the child shouldn’t have to grow up like that. -Dbaby007
I agree that it is the parent’s fault for committing the crime, but everyone should get a second chance if the crime wasn’t as bad. For example, someone can get jail time for being behind on child support, but is that really the best solution? Also, the parent being in jail is not giving them the option to be present in their child’s life to help prevent them from making the same bad mistakes they made or even worse. Them being in jail is also putting them in a negative environment and surrounding them with criminals that can influence them on how to do the bad things in a better way. -pieface007
I agree that the person should do the time for the crime they committed, but that may hinder the development of the child they have to leave. I would propose that maybe we could have an alternative to jail time, something along the lines of community service or working a job not many people want to do. This allows the individual to put in time based off of the crime they commit, while possibly being able to help support for the child they have. Being able to see the child would also help the child’s development both in a psychological way and a physiological way. Jar007
I can’t really speak for anyone on this issue because this had never happened to me, but I feel for those mothers and their children. Reading the article makes me feel good that these mothers got to have a second shot at being involved in their child’s life. I would argue that those children lives are shaped for the future on whether or not a parent was in their life or not. If their mother stays incarcerated throughout their youth, they might start to do things their mom did because its their mom and what she did must be right. That’s why I think it’s great that these programs exist for not just the moms, but for the children as well. What was also interesting was the low amount of mothers that actually went back to being incarcerated from doing the program. 9% is pretty low number for returning offenders. In the future they might want to add programs for mothers getting out so that they can return to their families with a stable paying job. You don’t want a mother that just got out of jail and have to go steal money or food just so they can feed their children. There should be a way or system that can work so that this doesn’t happen and that they never return to jail. Overall, I thought this article was very interesting. I was able to learn more about a subject matter I knew little about.-CUBFAN007
I love your response!!! Yes the mother did commit the crime, I feel that a mothers love is completely irreplaceable and should be in their baby's life. Instead of the mother being locked up, couldn't she maybe volunteer somewhere or do community service? Volunteer somewhere local so she's never missing an emotional step of her child's life? We see it in movies, so why not turn it into reality? Okurrr007
Letting people have an easier time with their punishment has some serious benefits. Letting mothers go and see their child grow and shape into an adult can help to shape their mind and make sure they don’t go and do the crime again. Most parents have an emotional bond with the child after spending just a few hours with the child and not being able to see their kid grow and accomplish the goals they have set for themselves is something a lot of parents won’t want to miss. This makes it so most parents, especially mothers, will think twice before they start doing crime after they come out of sentence they have been giving. It also helps the tax payers and flow of money in that area because now you have one more person paying bills and taxes instead of just having an empty house not generating any income. Another benefit is that the kid has a parent if not both in there life, and doesn’t have to go into a foster care program. If the mother would be the only parent, then the kid would be forced to “fend for himself/herself.” this could mean that the child goes and commits the crime and lands himself in jail. Now you have the child messing his life up and having a criminal record just because his mother made a mistake to help him out. It also saves the prison money as it takes money to put someone in jail. Using up jail space and money is something that should be used only for someone who would be serving large amounts of time in the jail. Giving the parents the chance to stay at home will save space in the jail and save money from the taxpayers and people who live in that area. -Robocop007
I do not relate to this at all but I do feel there should be an exception to for women with younger children. Yes, the mother did commit a crime but she has a responsibility at home who needs her to be there. So instead of allowing the mother go home for only a couple moments why not let her go and she just do community service? I’ve seen a lot of people commit crimes and have to volunteer their services working for the city. It happens in movies all of the time. Then she will be able to actively be in her child’s life but also be able to serve for the crime that she did commit. For example, the mother could feed the hungry, supply the less fortunate with items that they need, volunteer at a local Goodwill, Dream Center or similar organizations such as those, or the mother could pick up garbage and or plastics or wastes in different communities. And if the jail or prisons need proof that the mother is actually doing her time outside of jail, I believe that they could possibly take her to these areas. That way no one would be able to say that she wasn’t serving her time. I’m a mommy’s girl and could not imagine how that would be being away from my mother for a long period of time. Even when my mother dropped me off for an hour over my grandparents I wasn’t feeling that. I feel that a mother should be able to see her child do anything. Such as going off to kindergarten, kindergarten graduation, grade school, high school, college etc. The mother birthed you so of course so she’ll want to see everything. Yes a crime was committed but a mother’s love is very important so I feel community service should be available. okurrr007
I agree with this, but I also feel as if the mother commits a crime, she should to the time. It’s hard when a mother gets separated from her child/children. But doing the crime, she put herself and her kids in that type of situation when she committed the crime because she should’ve thought about her kids first. On the other hand, I do agree with the program I like it because some mothers do miss the most special moments in their kid’s life and that’s a once in a lifetime thing to see. I feel that if a mother commits a small crime (Ex: Stealing something because she didn’t have the money to provide for her children) she shouldn’t be put in prison away from her children. Doing 1-5 years, missing out on your child’s life, A child not having a mom because she’s locked up over something small. I don’t think kids should be put in foster homes when a mother gets put in jail. That’s taking them away from their entire family, and if a mother has more than one child all her children get separated from each other. I’m speaking from experience I had to deal with child services. So, I feel as if the children should go with a close family member instead of getting put into a foster home so at least they can still be close to their family and try to know who their mom was, (if she did big time in prison). A crime is a crime regardless of what the situation was. And some mothers shouldn’t be around their kids unless they know they’ve improved because that would be a bad role model to the kids and the kids having to see the lifestyle their mom is living is not good on them. -Dbaby007
I agree with you in that the mother committed the crime and should be punished. I also agree that if that the mother committed a small crime such as stealing something to provide for her family she should not be punished to severely. She still should be punished but not be taken away from her children. I enjoyed reading your post. –ClarkKent007
I agree that if the mother was sent to prison, she should do the time. I also agree that she put herself in that situation. I also think that the mother shouldn't be around the children unless she has improved. It’s important to make sure that the children have a good role model and it’s also important to make sure that they’re safe. -SOCCER31007
After reading this article I am 50/50 on this situation. On one side the mother committed the crime, she has to deal with what she had done. If she really wanted to be there for her child she would not have committed the crime. It sucks that she cannot see her child but like I said she committed the crime and did it to herself. But if she could do her time at home with an ankle monitor it might help the child turn out better. She is still serving her time, even though she is not in a cell at a jail or prison her freedom is limited. Plus it saves tax payers a lot of money if she does not stay in jail. It also might help the mother stay out of trouble if she was able to see her child on a daily basis. She would have something to stay out of trouble for. On the other side I understand that a child needs their parent to be there for big moments and to be a role model. I saw this first hand with my old neighbor. This kid had everything going for him. He was smart, talented, and athletic, but his mother could not stop going to jail. With every time she went to jail I saw he changed a little. First it was not showing up to practice, then he just stop going out for sports. After a while he started to drink and do drugs. He was following in his mother’s footsteps. The last time I talked to him he had gotten arrested for fighting. Maybe if his mother had been in his life for more of his big moments he might have turned out different. Like I said I am 50/50 on this situation. There are too many variables and what ifs for me to be on one side. -ClarkKent007
I believe it is important for a child do have a mother and and a mother has a special impact on a child's life... but the mother committed a crime. I don't want to sound callus or insensitive but I don't like giving out special treatment to criminals. Especially if the haven't done anything to show that they deserve it! just being a mother in itself dose not warrant special treatment. Although it is unfortunate being a mouther in prison may have an added effect on the mother. missing precious moments with your child because your mistake or crime landed you in prison may be a way to "learn your lesson". This goes for fathers as well. I believe having a father as a child is equally important. I am unaware if there are treatments like this for incarcerated fathers. But if a father can't get this then a mouther shouldn't either. 11bravo007
This article helped me gain an understanding of how incarcerating mothers has a negative effect on both the mother and their families. Like it was stated in the article, mothers can miss some of the most important parts of their lives, such as their child’s first words or any major events that they may participate in. Children need their mothers to be present in their lives, especially during the younger stage of their lives. I believe that the idea of creating alternatives to incarceration for these mothers is an amazing idea and should be put into effect throughout the country. Incorporating things like serving sentences at home under electric monitoring and supervision, as well as intensive community supervision are plausible substitutes for incarceration. Also, these would help allow mothers to be able to have the chance to be present and involved in the moments of their children’s’ lives. Furthermore, these substitutes to incarceration have the ability to save taxpayer money and also save children from the additional collateral consequences of being a child in the foster care system. By being allowed to be under intensive community supervision, mothers would not have to serve as much time in jail and therefore, it would not cost as much money to keep them locked up. Also, with the presence of their mothers thanks to electric monitoring and supervision, children would be able to be taken care of at their homes and not have to be put into the foster care system. Incarcerating women that are mothers is a bigger problem than people think. By incarcerating mothers, special moments in both the mother’s and the child’s life are missed and cannot be repeated. If alternatives are substituted in for the jail time these mothers are supposed to serve, these special moments will no longer be missed, taxpayer money can be saved, and children won’t have to be placed in the foster care system. -Fozz007
I completely agree with you in the sense that thus article touched on how incarcerating mothers has a negative effect on both the mother and their families. With the tradition program the children might get to see there mothers for a few minutes and there might even be glass between them. If the mother is willing to stay on the right path a think I would completely agree with alternative sentencing. RHB007
Parenting is very important. I think Washington’s FOSA made a great decision to let parents replace some of their sentence for time to be out with their children seeing them in those important moments. I have had experience with one of my parents being incarcerated. Not having one of your parents can make a big impact on your life. With the parent not being at home with the child can hurt the child the most. My dad went to prison in 2010 and has just been released early this year. Not being able to see me grow up, walk across the stage on graduation, be there for my cotillion, etc. As they get out of jail they have to try and adapt to their child all grown up now. Everybody makes mistakes in their lives and they should have second chances. The parent being at home around the child is a reminder to them of why they need to make good decisions. Like the article states, the rate of people that have got the privilege to the PSA (Parenting Sentencing Alternatives) program and had to get sent back to jail is nine percent. These facts prove that the PSA program is very affective a re-offending. This program has shown to be beneficial to the community by providing services by offenders that would not otherwise be completed. Besides, jails and prisons are already overcrowded, and they should save the room for people that have done major crimes. It also costs the state lots of money to have all those people in jails; having to pay for medicine, food, gas and electric, water, etc., it’s just more of everything. The more inmates they have also means the more staff they need. With that being said, sending them to jail can save lots of tax dollars when there are many different alternative punishments they can have than incarcerations. -pieface007
I don’t always think some punishments are fair. On the other side I think that having a child for most mothers would be a great incentive for them to behave and be productive members of society in order to be there for their children. It was very staggering to see that over 147,000 children have had a mother in state or federal prison in 2007 and the fact that it was a 231% increase from 1991 is astronomical. I will say that I like Washington state Department of corrections program Giving eligible mothers the option to still be a parent in their kids lives once again this goes back to the incentive to get out and stay out of jail or prison. In the article I like how it points out many of these individuals will finish out their sentences at least the last year of their sentence under electronic bracelet monitoring in their homes with their families. I do believe as long as the mother can’t stay out of trouble and provide for her children she should have the option to do so. However I am not saying that every mother should get that opportunity if the crime was not a victimless crime or if it was a violent crime I think that they should have more restrictions and if they violate terms of release they should have more restrictions. Also you can look at it from a financial point of view because others will remain in the community and their kids will remain with their mothers saving taxpayers money for the child be going into the foster care program. RHB007
I like what you had to say. From what I gather, you believe that there should be certain crimes that call the for incarceration. It makes sense to have or maintain a set of standards if programs like the one implemented in Washington can work effectively. It takes time to see results, but time costs money. ---YouMustAcquit007
I definitely agree with what you said. I agree that the type of crime should also depend on the program qualifications. I hope we can continue to see improvements with this program, and maybe get it in other states as well. stlblues007
I watched my 5 year old cousin go throw continus tantrums, crying, lashing out and, getting kicked out of kindergarten all because his mother was incarcerated. His mom has been incarcerated in and out of his life for the past 2 years. Everytime she would go away that would be his behavior. Of course when your that age all you want is your mom and sometimes your dad but, primarily your mom because she is supposed to be the one that makes everything better. His mom wanted to do better for her son however, she just couldn't get rehabilitated back into society. This caused her to continue doing what she did to end up in jail. While in jail however she did get a GED and learned job ready skills so she could be better equipped for life. She also learned life skills and how to be a better mom. Although in jail or prison for a crime, there needs to be more programs to help people stay out of jail and have a better chance at life. Study shows that the more programs and help inmates have while in the system, will decrease their chances of going back. My cousins mom has now been out of jail for 6 years and is working to get a bachelor's degree in Psychology, and it's all from getting the resources and help she did while in jail. 21Miami007
From what i gather, if i'm correct, you're saying that there are ways to rehabilitate and keep mothers out of prison without changing the system but instead bettering it? And if so i strongly strongly agree. Not necessarily does the system need to be changed but it needs to be bettered so it can do what it is intended to and rehabilitate and prepare not JUST mothers but all criminals for life afterwards. I don't believe mothers should be treated much more special than any other criminal. They are all people with families. Some with younger siblings or nieces and nephews, some with grandparents that need care, some just with family in general that they love an miss and i don't think they deserve any less than a mother missing her child. Everyone has their own circumstance and everyone should be focused on. The system needs improved NOT changed. gray007
All in all it all boils down to two things: 1. How much money will it save? 2. How beneficial will it be society as a whole. Money is everything, especially to the tax paying citizens in this country. For it is tax dollars that are spent to feed, house, and pay for incarcerated mothers to give birth. There are states, such as Washington who are trying alternatives forms of punishment, like community service, ankle monitors, house arrest, etc for mothers who are pregnant and have committed a crime. Studies have shown that these alternatives, are both cost-effective, and help reduce the occurrence of future illegal acts. A child should never be a part from their mother, even if a mother commits a crime, but there is a line that needs to be drawn, in terms of what crimes are considered automatic incarceration. That is where the trouble will be. Pre-trial departure the program that is being used up in Washington state for these women. I am all for keeping families together, kids need their parents in their lives, especially their mothers. Statistics, have shown that children with mothers who are incarcerated or have been incarcerated are at a higher risk of committing crimes and sending time behind bars. It makes more sense to do something that could possibly help reduce the number of people in the jails and prisons across the country. I believe that more programs like the one in Washington state need to be implemented in other states. In order to show concrete evidence for programs for mothers, or expectant mothers are working and beneficial. As stated before it all boils down to how much money will be saved and how beneficial this program and more like it will actually be. It sounds crazy but it is reality. –YouMustAcquit007.
I agree like we are so far in debt it’s crazy, and when cost about 40,000 to house an inmate with making sure they eating properly, getting Medicare, and make sure they living condition is somewhat suitable and maintainable, we really can’t afford to keep housing inmates especially if it’s for a small crime where they can easily get supervision and admit they messed up and accept it and take their punishment as an adult. It always would change the views on the criminal justice on a whole if we are able to limit how family where destroying by one taking probably they sole provided, and two simply they loved one who probably is the only thing that is holding they family together. Statechamp007
I feel as though this article sugar coats or handles the situation these mothers are in with kid gloves a little more than necessary. I agree largely that a mother AND a father (that of which this article does not mention very much which caught my attention is this being offered to fathers too and if so why are they not being brought up equally?) play the primary role in molding a child into who they become and it would make sense to feel the way the author does about taking a mother or father out of a child's life. That being said the fact that a parent plays that large of a role in molding a child into what they become should be just as much reason to disagree with this article as it is to support it. These mothers and fathers had children before they went to jail and/or prison, they had children before they decided to commit the crime they did. They knew the risk of whatever it is they did and they weighed that risk and ultimately chose that it was worth it to lose their child over breaking that law. Now obviously there are extenuating circumstances and every case is different in some way and not necessarily did they have a choice or maybe they broke the law to provide for that child ect. and cases like that are different of course. More minor cases are obviously different and this article may apply to those situations much better but i do not believe we should group all mothers with a criminal background together. i also very strongly disagree with the comparison of a hardworking mother like Serena williams who is pursuing her career (and has every right to do so mother or not) and missed a single moment of her child's life to a mother who chose to break the law over her child and for that was put in prison and is now missing an extended and consecutive amount of time and moments in her child's life. Comparing a hard working mother who is chasing her dreams and raising a child at the same time to a criminal who blatantly chose to give her child up for whatever it is she found to be worthy is completely ridiculous in my personal opinion. Thats like saying having a life outside motherhood is a crime and cant be done. Now again there are extenuating circumstances and not all of the criminals just gave up their kid like it was that easy but not all committed minor offenses either. There are killers and rapists and arsonists and much more who are intelligent and charming and convincing and are in prison and are mothers and could easily take advantage of this and use this child as no more than a leverage point to shorten or make their sentence easier not to mention once out these mothers could influence this child to follow in her footsteps and then the entire ideal this program has set out to follow is pointless. I am a 100% believer that people change and they make mistakes but i also believe if they are in prion they are certainly there for a reason. All in all i am just saying they are sugar coating the fact that these women are still criminals and chose to be. Just because they have a child doesn't necessarily make them a mother and that should be thoroughly considered. gray007
My parents were never sent to prison so I don't know what it’s like to have a parent in prison. I think it’s important for a child to have a parent figure in their life. I can see how this is important because you don't want to miss out on important things in your children's life. I think it’s nice that they’re trying to keep the parents involved with their kids but when the article mentioned that it would show the incarcerated parent what it would be like if they didn't commit the crime that they committed, they still committed a crime and it doesn't change anything. I think they should still serve the time they were sentenced in prison because they knew what they were doing. It would probably keep them from committing another crime but they still did it. I understand that no child wants their parent in prison but they still committed a crime. I think there could be visiting days for the parent and the child but I don’t really agree with the parent finishing out their sentence at home. The article said that 540 parents were able to complete this and I think that’s great but I think that they should spend their sentence at prison. I was surprised that in 2007 there was 147,000 children who had mothers in prison. I was also surprised that there was an increase from 1991 and it increased by two hundred and thirty one percent. I understand that everyone has their opinions on this article and I can see the pros and cons of this article but the parent knows they made a mistake when they committed the crime. Before they committed the crime they should've thought about how this would affect their children. I think they should show their children that if you commit a crime, you have to deal with the consequences. -SOCCER31007
All children need their Parents in the life in some type of form but especially from the infant stage through your teens and into your earlier adulthood. As a mother caring a baby for 9 months builds a bond stronger than anything so, being there to see the little things is more than just little things. So, when an parent goes into solitary confinement and have to leave there child or children behind for and long period of time then return, it doesn’t only hurt the mother but it hurts the child’s or children’s not just emotionally but mentally because they get used to seeing them everyday then poof they’re gone, and when they do return they act more as if they don’t want to recreate that bond with you because they are afraid of you disappearing again. Reading this article and being interested in some type of criminal justice field you start to feel for the mother that are or once where included in this statistic, like aren’t there other ways for mother to do their time and not have to see their little children through a glass or in a visiting room or miss the memorable moment that you can only experience once. The state of Washington has a really good plan in place that helps solves this problem, I feel that yes a crime was committed but it’s a crime where it wasn’t super serious to where she’s have to go into the system then potentially have her child go into the system as well, why not get put on extreme court supervision, where she yes have to get punished for her crime but not to the point where her whole life is taken away from her which is of course her child or children. Just think if a child see’s there parent taken into the system how higher the chances of them going into the system or even becoming terribly troubled. Statechamp007
Parents are an important role for a child’s life and that should not be taken away completely. I agree with this article because mothers care to see their kids first steps and other milestones. I think that fathers should be seen the same way we see a mother as well because they are just as important. I also think that this privilege should not be given to just any regular mother or father that is incarcerated. I think it should depend on their offense and how safe they are to the community or will be. It’s kind of hard to wrap my head around the idea of being a parent and ending up in jail because you would think that they would want to do things correctly to not be in that situation. It is really sad having to see kids going to different foster homes while their parents are in prison. It could probably lower crime rate from younger children, whose parents are there to look out for them after getting out of prison. The nurturing of a parent is important for children because they are born wanting attention and love. Also it is known that jails and prisons are overcrowded and I think that would help to make room for other criminals. Also for those parents who are there for there 1st offense, I think it would be good to give them that opportunity so they do not get involved with other criminals. The cost to maintain a jail or prison is so high that it would help to have those parents at home trying to change their lives than sitting in a cell. I think this would be something that could really help the community as a whole. Where there are more parents involved in their children’s life and not getting into crimes where that relationship with their kids might be broken. taco007
I agree that seeing your kid go through several different foster homes could really take a toll on a parent. Depression with parents in jail is definitely a factor that we have to keep in mind for not only the child, but the parent. I also agree that the type of crime committed should play a big role in whether or not they serve jail time. We can't just let every first time offender serve their time at home. -BuffaloChickenDip007
I can absolutely see both sides to this argument. 1. If the mother wanted to be with her child she most definitely thought twice about her actions knowing that it will jeopardize her relationship and bonding time with their child. I get sometimes you have to do what you have to do but you have to learn to put your babies needs before yours and to set a better example on how to be a good person and to watch them grow into a young adult. Even if there isn't a father figure in the picture, that honestly shouldn't give you a reason to start doing drugs or bringing bad men into your life, but to show them sometimes all you have is yourself and you have to be independent in your life and do things the right way. Now on the other hand I think this is a pretty good idea to have a program like this because it gives the mother that time an growth with their son or daughter and to see their accomplishments like walking and saying their first words, I would assume that would be every parents dream to be apart of.
When reading the article, I totally could see both sides too and how they should think twice about their actions. I also think that it’s more than that because a lot of people are born in a household of crime. They had grown up around it and trying to leave that life would be difficult especially if they are threatened. taco007
Children need a mother figure in their life, so I really like this idea. Taking a mother away from her child for long periods of time can really affect the development of the kid, and will also take a big toll on the family. Every mom wants to see their kid take it's first steps, and speak it's first words. This is a once in a life time opportunity for the parent, and shouldn't be taken away just because of a short prison sentence. So if there is a safe way to make that happen when the mother has been convicted of a hefty crime, then I don't see why not. The evidence backs it up too, showing a low 9% of moms going back to jail when they complete this program. Not only that, but it saves a whole lot of money. Every inmate costs thousands of dollars to house and feed, all of which is saved when being put through this intense monitoring program. There really isn't any downside I can see to this, as long as the moms keep learning their lesson. If it's that parent's first offense I think this type of punishment should be looked into more. I'm a big believer in second chances, and this is the perfect way to do it. I imagine it's a lot easier to stay motivated too when the moms are with their kids, rather than being locked up. I think they could take this idea and run with it, giving more first time offenders extreme supervision and community service hours as an alternative to jail time. Of course you would have to raise the penalties for a second offense while on this program to ensure the public safety. This could make a big dent in our national debt and would help our overcrowded prison problems. Not only that, but it would help the relationship between the government and the public. -BuffaloChickenDip007
I think Parenting Sentencing Alternatives are a good idea. Not only does the parent have the opportunity to be in the child's life, but the child benefits from the parents being there. Childhood development is something that has been proven to shape most of your personality. If only one of your parents are there for you, then you aren't getting all the attention and care that you may need to compete with other children that are learning from both parents. PSA’s allow for both parents to be present, working with the child, taking care of the child so that the child develops more. Also, it helps to have both parents in the child’s life, as long as the parent is helpful to the child and doesn’t hinder the child's ways of thinking, playing, or living a regular life. The PSA’s allow for parents to be there on important life events, such as the child's first steps, the child's first words, and even something like the child's first day of school. It will give the child assurance seeing both parents there in his or her life, learning lessons from both the parents to maximize possible development. I believe that this is also a way for the parents to stay out of trouble. The numbers for parents returning to jail for getting into trouble again are very low, saying that the parents want to do good to be there for the child as much as possible, and not to skip anymore life events that they could miss by going back to jail. I believe that PSA’s are helpful to both the parent in terms of finding and needing a reason to stay out of trouble, and good for the kid from the point of view saying that the child needs as much attention and care to help brain development. Jar007
I’m about 50/50 on this article. On one hand, I understand how a mother being with her child is important, but on the other, I believe if you committed the crime, you need to serve your time and punishment for it. I haven’t had a parent be incarcerated, but I know what it’s like to have a parent who’s absent. It’s not easy and it can really affect a child throughout life. Having an absent mother or father could also cause a child to act out, and possibly get incarcerated like their parents. I do think the FOSA program would be a good idea. The women would still have to technically serve time, but they can at least watch their children grow up. I also feel as if the 9-12% that ended up back to prison, could increase. Just because some women get pregnant and give birth, doesn’t mean they actually care about their child. I’ve seen people choose drugs and the wrong people over their own kids. Even having a mother around doesn’t matter if they won’t be there for their kids. Some parents might be in the FOSA program, but still try to find a way around it, and continue doing the things that landed them in prison to begin with. It’s a good idea overall, but then again there’s many ways it could backfire. stlblues007
having a mother in your life is very helpful. It is needed I believe. a child can make such a big impact on anyone but especially their mothers. having a bond with someone is very important to any child. I personally believe that mothers should be able to see their child and interact with them occasionally. Some women aren't in for very serious crimes and it is very uncalled for that they get their children taken away! Taking away a child will do nothing but start a fire between people. a program where they actually look at the minor and the not so serious crimes and maybe to teach these women how to interact with their children would be great. Not all mothers can be amazing but everyone who cares for their child should at least get a chance to prove themselves. yes, a child needs their mother but the mother also needs their child -freckles007
I understand all the views in this article but I am a firm believer in if you do the crime, you do the time. It is extremely disheartening knowing that there are tons of mothers in prisons that their children are going to the system or have gone to someone else, such as a family member, etc. Every child deserves and needs their parents. Any mother separated from her child who have an incredibly hard time if they truly love their kid. But these women are going to prison for a reason. Just like if a 20 year old robs a bank and his mother has cancer, he will go to prison regardless. That was his decision he made and he gets no free ride because his mother is ill. I don't have any first hand experience with prison. I don't have any family members that were sent away or had children involved with that mix. I do believe there should be a way for mother's in prison to be involved with their child though. Such as helping them with their schoolwork or reading to them. Although I do not believe women should get special privileges if they have children while they're in prison, I do believe there should be something set in place at all prisons for the wellness of the women. Kids being separated from a parent, is incredibly tough. My father didn't have a dad growing up so he had no real male model, father figure in his life to help him when he became a dad. He learned everything on his own and he will admit he has tripped way more than kids that had dad's growing up. I also have an issue with the fact that not every single woman that gets out of prison and abuses the system will truly care to the fullest extent of their child. We see it daily in America, choosing drugs over children and illegal activities over reading a book to their baby. -notacop911
I agree that people shouldn't get special treatment for a crime because of issues going on in that persons life. I agree that women should be able to interact with their kids as well. Although, I don't mind the programs they are offering to these women. They can only be put on house arrest if they only have a year or less left in prison. So some have already went a couple years without seeing their children, and most are in their for petty drug crimes. Although I will agree with you on the whole rather sell dope, then read to my kid as they fall asleep. This does happen a crap ton. I think that with the ankle bracelets, it should be treated like parole. Regular, random check-ins and searches of the property. If anything is going on, then the women gets yanked back into prison, and not allowed to benefit from these programs again. Kind of like bail bond companies! ^~^Itis007
This article focused on the issue with moms being incarcerated, while still having a baby at home to take care of. The women arrested although having kids at home, doesn’t surprise me. Seems like a common thing to happen. I agree with the fact that these mothers are much needed at home to take care of their children. Maybe there’s no one else to take care of them, like no family and friends. What happens when there is no one else to take care of the child. Child Protective Services (CPS) has to take the poor kid to a adoption home, or foster care places. Every mother wants those precious moments with their kids, and not being there for it doesn’t just affect the parent, it also affects the kids. Those two new sentences programs are great for mothers. Instead of staying confined for another year, they can just go home, on an ankle bracelet, and serve their remainder time out that way. This makes it to where the mom is able to take care of her kid, and also get to experience the kids “first times.” That might not seem that big of a deal, but ask any mother and she would tell you otherwise. It’s also a big deal for the kids. Having a mom that is going missing every couple of weeks is for sure to affect the kid in a negative way. Hopefully the children have another parent, or guardian to take care of them, but most don’t, and even if they did, it’s never good for a kid to hardly see their own mom. Especially if they are hearing stories about their own mother. I also like how less than 15%, on both programs, of women who do these sentencing programs are actually going back to prison! I think that these programs are showing mothers how important it is to be able to take care of their child. ^~^Itis007
When reading this article, this topic really gave me some mixed feelings that I personally have never even thought about before. I think that a mother is extremely important in a child's life, and I believe that every child needs their mother. My opinion on the matter in this article is that depending on the crime that was committed, the mother should not be taken away from her child completely if sent away to prison. There should be some sort of system that allows for the mother and child to be able to be with one another. If the mother committed a crime more serious such as first degree murder, I do not think that the mother should even be in that child's life. The mixed feelings that I received from this article is that I understand completely that a mother being in a child's life is important, but on the other hand, I also think that a crime is a crime and the person who was convicted should have some sort of punishment that fits to the crime. I also could see where a child may even be better off without the mother in its life. My stand point on the situation and on this article is that I believe that we should do whatever the government thinks is best for the child. KiiNG007
I agree with you when you mentioned about that privilege should not be given depending on the crime. Also if the mother isn’t an ideal mother than maybe the child is better off. For the most part I understood where you came from but when you said we should do what the government thinks is best for the child isn’t always best for the child. Look at the foster care system ran by the government. Where lives are also being destroyed being in that system. taco007
I agree with what you are saying somewhat. I do not completely agree with your statement saying that we should do whatever the government thinks is right for the child. The State of Illinois right now have many children in foster care. Some are placed with foster parents, group homes and even with some relatives. With the things the parents have to do in order to get their children back are not that hard. If they do what they are supposed to do for a short amount of time they are eligible to get their child back. Once the child get placed back in to the care of the mother, the mother can turn back to her old ways. If she turns back to her old ways it could potentially harm the child, or put the child at some type of risk. Right now Illinois is trying to get the children in the system back with their parents, which is a good thing. My thing with it all is what about the children that do not need to be with the biological parents. Let's say those biological parents are causing more harm than good things. Yes we are human and we make mistakes. However, we can not call them mistakes if they keep happening over and over again. jw007
Reading article I agree with some of what is said and I feel like it is a great thing to have the programs Parenting Sentencing Alternatives (PSAs), the Family and Offender Sentencing Alternative (FOSA) and the Community Parenting Alternative (CPA). It is very important for a mother to see her child take their first steps, crawl, say momma or dada for the first time. As children grow older and their mother is not present in their life, it could potently hurt the child as well as the mother of the child. I find those programs good for the mother and the child. I also say that because with how high recidivism rate are in prisons and jails are so much higher than 12%. 12% is the rate at which mothers return to prison for a new felony. Also a plus is that it costs less to have the community-based alternative then to house an individual in prison for multiple years. However, I feel like the programs can cause a debate with what crimes the mother has committed to qualify to be in the program and what crime committed would keep her from qualifying. I think that mothers should be apart of their children's life just the same as fathers. jw007
I think the FOSA program has the potential to be a very good alternative to traditional incarceration, however the program also relies on the parents’ ability to adhere to the rules. If the parent has committed a first-time offense then this may be the way to go. Obviously the current system doesn’t take into consideration the children who may be losing their parents. This program will take them into consideration and help ensure kids have their parents in their lives. As the article mentions, the current prison system is very costly to taxpayers. Prisons have to buy uniforms, pay salaries, feed prisoners, train guards, and much more. Think of it like feeding pets. Imagine only having to feed two animals instead of four. Suddenly you have more money available for other things, like gas for your car, etc. The FOSA program also reduces the number of inmates in prisons. That means less people requiring food, bedding, healthcare, etc. The parent would have to pay for their own things while being held accountable for their actions. The FOSA program, as mentioned in the article, can also keep kids out of the foster care program, which is another thing paid for with tax money. Less kids in foster care means fewer mouths to feed. The money being saved by not housing kids and inmates can be put toward other things, like upgrades to schools, or maybe a new fire engine, or better parks for the kids of the parents who are in the FOSA program. On the other side, this program isn’t going to totally cut costs. Electronic monitoring equipment is still an electronic device that transmits a signal. It’s going to be expensive, but the devices should only be a one-time purchase that can be reused with other people in the program. -Redranger007
This article hits home for me not because my mom was incarcerated, but because she was diagnosed with breast cancer when I was in primary school. Life is tough when you are growing up in the first place. You need someone to show you the ropes and teach you right from wrong and some kids don't get that care and support that they need which usually ends up as a troubled adult who isn't quite sure of what they should do or who they even are. When my mom was in the hospital receiving treatments and surgeries, I was in my classroom wondering why I haven't had some of moms good cooking in a while and wondering whos gonna be home when the day is over with. It is very challenging, especially at such a young age with the lack of understanding of what's going on or what might happen. I think when mothers become incarcerated, it's worse than a life sentence for them and the child. Don't get me wrong however. A crime is a crime no matter how minute or severe the charge is. There must be reparations to this kind of behavior so that it won't be committed again. The sad fact about this is that taking a kids mother away from them so she can learn her lesson is like throwing oil on fire. YEs, she will more than likely not commit the crime again, but now they have both missed out on biological bonding moments that help build who we are in the future. I do appreciate Washington's FOSA program that allows mothers to be monitored at home while still caring for their family and hopefully not wanting to ever do wrong again. It is a win for the corrections system, the taxpayers, the mother, and last but certainly not least, the children. GVFF007
ReplyDeleteI think that it's certainly interesting to have your perspective on the issue because you walk in the shoes of who this is intended to affect and I also find it interesting that you did accept that a crime is a crime and there has to be some form or punishment. I liked your analogy to oil on a fire and how it ultimately makes things worse. -TaxSeason007
DeleteI can totally agree with what you are saying. When your are child anything can make a strong impact on you as you become an adult and can make life very difficult for yourself. When I was younger, my mom and my dad was not in my life that much.. My mother still wanted to be a child and my father was in and out of jail a lot. Now that I am growing up to be an adult it has made an huge impact of my life. Since I did not get the love that I should have gotten from my parents. I search for love in all the wrong places. Smiles007
DeleteThis is a very interesting perspective to take because it can be similar in ways. I do agree that many women should be able to connect with there children on a personally level instead of being out of the Childs life for a long period of time. But i also think that some women are in there for serious crimes and by taking them out of the Childs life could be more beneficial. It is an iffy situation because you want both love and safety for the child. Possible consider programs for the smaller crimes and maybe leave the bigger crimes alone and show a sense of responsibility for their consequences.
Delete-hollywood007
I agree, I also grew up without a mother and I landed in multiple foster homes! I never had a good connection or bond with my mother and I strongly believe that one is needed between mother and child! it is important for growth. Yes, some mothers are not the greatest but more than half of them deserve to be in their child's life even if it is only once or twice a week. Classes for these women would be taken seriously and would be very beneficial! -freckles007
DeleteI fell like this article really did miss the mark in my honest opinion. The closing remark states "reminding incarcerated mothers and fathers that a life without crime allows them to be around to see those precious first steps." though with the proposed changes the contrary would happen. The changes would allow people to commit crimes and still be able to have the ability to let them see their child's first steps. Though I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment the statement itself is a bit contradictory. As I was reading through this article my mind kept reeling in an oddly conservative manner, was this such a prevalent issue 50-70 years ago and if not why? Well it's safe to say that the culture has dramatically changed since then, especially when it comes to family planning. Today we tend to see people have children at younger ages because sex is a more commonplace and acceptable thing before marriage. We also see people intentionally planning to create a family without marriage. If we consider these and we also understand that people will age out of crime (meaning the older you are, the less likely you will be to live a criminal lifestyle) then I think that it is a fair assessment to say that we wouldn't have these issues that are at hand on such a broad scale if we encouraged people to wait until marriage to have sex or start a family. The culture shift will have repercussions and I think that's what we're seeing here in this article. I'm not one to tell people that their kid was born too soon in their life or to put the blame on them for any single action, but perhaps being more cautious or having a more conservative lens when such choices are made may not be so harmful when the only downside is a loss of instant gratification.
ReplyDelete-TaxSeason007
Actually, the average age where women are giving birth for the first time has gone up in recent decades due to education, but I agree that certain statements in this article were contradicting each other. Also, family without marriage isn't a bad thing because it is different from a few decades ago. Have you seen "Friends" ever? They had 3 of those types of story arcs. I do agree though that if the parent is being a bad influence on the child that they should not be allowed to have custody or visitation. -CAPMARVEL007
DeleteI can not really relate with this article but I do understand in somewhat how it feels to not have your mother in father in your life. To read about the article it make me very happy to see that mothers and father can get a second chance to be apart of their children life. Being their for a child does make a big impact in the life and it can reflect on how the child to an teenager to an adult life would be. It can be a good thing or a bad thing for a child growing up for myself not having either parents in my life while I was child and living with my grandparents. Going to school and hearing your fellow classmates talking about what they do at home with their mother or father it sadden me because I never got to feel how that felt. Even though my parents was not incarnated it kinda felt like that with them not being their. Mothers that are incarnated and that have children sees that and can start doing crimes when they become a teenager because they see their parent getting out of jail over and over again. At the same time it while having programs formulated to help parents still be in their child life while still have to punish for what they have done. Is a smart idea because it can help a child from growing up to not be incarnated also. Also they should pass something that will help incarnated parents to find a good paying job when they get out so they will not find them selves back into jail. And be able to support their household without having there felony hold them back. Smiles007
ReplyDelete*not Smiles007
DeleteI totally agree with how you said that incarcerated parents should have a way to receive full time jobs once they are released. I feel like it would impact their lives in such a way that they forget about the wrong that they have done and focus on trying to resolve the issues between the children. It also serves as a way for them to provide for the families whether it be a steady income or the benefits that come along with such as the children's health and dental insurance. Kids just want support and I feel like this would make them idolize their parents much more.GVFF007
DeleteI agree that a program to help parents find full time jobs would be beneficial, however such a program would require there to be job opportunities available. You also have to remember that these parents are technically convicted, so even if they can find someone who is hiring they may be rejected as a result of their conviction. This program would have to look far and wide for businesses who are willing to overlook criminal charges.
Delete-Redranger007
I am very indifferent on this article based on I have never had personally experience with this in any shape or form. I do agree in the sense that a mother's time is very important to their children especially if she wants to create a bond with them. Mothering is one of the most important roles to a child's life and that you would want a mother to be present in any way they can. But in all reality is it still right in some cases. When a mother commits a crime there is multiple reasonings as the why this could have happened. If a women commits a small crime possibly stealing or drugs, I do believe there should be some type of program for mothers to still be involved in the child's life. I also see the other side of this by noting that many women are still incarcerated for bigger crimes and should take responsibility for what they did. Especially the most dangerous ones. Yes a mother's time is valuable and taken away could hurt the child but taking a possible dangerous women out of there life is more important than a little contact time. Bigger crimes such as murder are crimes that possibly the women may have not been thinking of her child and how this is going to affect their life and that is quite a dangerous flaw. From this article I could believe that 80% of women in jail are mothers. I can see that most of those crimes are petty crimes such as drugs. I believe those should be reconsider before they enter because they are mothers. Again I feel quite indifferent in this topic because of I could see both ways being efficient for the public. Mothers being in a child's life is important but are they showing them right from wrong and being great influencer is the question.
ReplyDelete-hollywood007
I agree with you when you say that mothering is one of the most important roles to a child’s life and a mother should be present in any way they can in their child’s life. During a child’s life, especially in their younger ages, needs their mother to be there for them. Mothers help play a vital role in the development of their child as they grow up. Without the presence of their mother, kids may struggle with certain things and be forced to go into the foster care system. I can’t imagine what it would be like to rarely be able to see my mom at a young age like eight or nine.
Delete-Fozz007
I definitely agree with you. There are plenty of women in this world that are roaming freely in this world with their children choice-fully due to not breaking the law or committing a serious crime. There are also a ton of women in this world that should be locked up and some women that already are and were just wrong place wrong time and now their kid has to suffer. It's absolutely horrible but it really is just the way the cookie crumbles. I could not imagine living without my mother now, and I need her just as much today as I did growing up. I would completely hate being behind bars having a child. I think every day it would drive me crazy. I also agree with your bigger crimes such as murder statement. It is extremely real and true. -notacop911
DeleteI am the type of person who believes that if you are willing to commit the crime, unless it is under life-or-death circumstances, you should have to do the sentence. Regardless of whether or not you are a parent breaking the law is still setting a bad example for your children. My only experience with something like this would be watching “This Is Us” with my mother, but a certain story arc should sit with people. In the show, a mother has been working full-time but has also been neglecting her time at home with her daughter by spending her free time and some of her “work time” with her latest boyfriend. The daughter decided to make dinner one night and ended up severely cutting her hand. Because her mom was not home when it happened, she went to the emergency room and had her injury treated. As you can probably guess, Child Services showed up and ended up taking the kid to a foster home. Mom later on went to rehab for a drug problem and when mom was cleared to get her kid back after completing rehab, she was fine and was a real mom, but only for two weeks. Her latest boyfriend had a gun in the mother’s car, mom was caught with it and went to jail. Several times the kid went back and forth between mom and foster homes because of her mother’s issues. Once someone has had these issues it is very hard to get rid of them. I believe that if they were not putting the child first that they should not get the child back after prison. I know that there are extenuating circumstances when it comes to these types of situations, but I believe that a child, regardless of their parents, should not be forced to grow up in the prison environment or with that shadowing them. It can be harmful to the child and they are at a much higher risk of committing those criminal acts when they get older. But this is just my opinion. -CAPMARVEL007
ReplyDeleteI like reading your point of view. I do agree that for some of these crimes if you do them you should do your time. I agree the mother at the end of the day is at fault for setting a bad example for their children. It is a tough topic to debate because of everyone's views, but I think its healthy to have these discussions.
Delete-CUBFAN007
This point of view is an interesting take. I can see why you would want the people to do the time for the crimes they have committed. Yet if you send they home it's not like they are totally free. What if they have an ankle monitor and are under house arrest so they are still confined to where they can travel or visit? They can still serve time, but nothing shows the effect like jail. very interesting! - Robocop007
DeleteI Agree with this, the mother is setting a bad example for her child. Not thinking about her child before she goes out and makes the decisions she made. And I honestly don’t like child services, but I feel as if the mother keeps making choices that she’s making and constantly going to jail, she shouldn’t get the child back because now her child has to witness the lifestyle that she’s making and the child shouldn’t have to grow up like that.
Delete-Dbaby007
I agree that it is the parent’s fault for committing the crime, but everyone should get a second chance if the crime wasn’t as bad. For example, someone can get jail time for being behind on child support, but is that really the best solution? Also, the parent being in jail is not giving them the option to be present in their child’s life to help prevent them from making the same bad mistakes they made or even worse. Them being in jail is also putting them in a negative environment and surrounding them with criminals that can influence them on how to do the bad things in a better way. -pieface007
DeleteI agree that the person should do the time for the crime they committed, but that may hinder the development of the child they have to leave. I would propose that maybe we could have an alternative to jail time, something along the lines of community service or working a job not many people want to do. This allows the individual to put in time based off of the crime they commit, while possibly being able to help support for the child they have. Being able to see the child would also help the child’s development both in a psychological way and a physiological way. Jar007
DeleteI can’t really speak for anyone on this issue because this had never happened to me, but I feel for those mothers and their children. Reading the article makes me feel good that these mothers got to have a second shot at being involved in their child’s life. I would argue that those children lives are shaped for the future on whether or not a parent was in their life or not. If their mother stays incarcerated throughout their youth, they might start to do things their mom did because its their mom and what she did must be right. That’s why I think it’s great that these programs exist for not just the moms, but for the children as well. What was also interesting was the low amount of mothers that actually went back to being incarcerated from doing the program. 9% is pretty low number for returning offenders. In the future they might want to add programs for mothers getting out so that they can return to their families with a stable paying job. You don’t want a mother that just got out of jail and have to go steal money or food just so they can feed their children. There should be a way or system that can work so that this doesn’t happen and that they never return to jail. Overall, I thought this article was very interesting. I was able to learn more about a subject matter I knew little about.-CUBFAN007
ReplyDeleteI love your response!!! Yes the mother did commit the crime, I feel that a mothers love is completely irreplaceable and should be in their baby's life. Instead of the mother being locked up, couldn't she maybe volunteer somewhere or do community service? Volunteer somewhere local so she's never missing an emotional step of her child's life? We see it in movies, so why not turn it into reality? Okurrr007
DeleteLetting people have an easier time with their punishment has some serious benefits. Letting mothers go and see their child grow and shape into an adult can help to shape their mind and make sure they don’t go and do the crime again. Most parents have an emotional bond with the child after spending just a few hours with the child and not being able to see their kid grow and accomplish the goals they have set for themselves is something a lot of parents won’t want to miss. This makes it so most parents, especially mothers, will think twice before they start doing crime after they come out of sentence they have been giving. It also helps the tax payers and flow of money in that area because now you have one more person paying bills and taxes instead of just having an empty house not generating any income. Another benefit is that the kid has a parent if not both in there life, and doesn’t have to go into a foster care program. If the mother would be the only parent, then the kid would be forced to “fend for himself/herself.” this could mean that the child goes and commits the crime and lands himself in jail. Now you have the child messing his life up and having a criminal record just because his mother made a mistake to help him out. It also saves the prison money as it takes money to put someone in jail. Using up jail space and money is something that should be used only for someone who would be serving large amounts of time in the jail. Giving the parents the chance to stay at home will save space in the jail and save money from the taxpayers and people who live in that area. -Robocop007
ReplyDeleteI do not relate to this at all but I do feel there should be an exception to for women with younger children. Yes, the mother did commit a crime but she has a responsibility at home who needs her to be there. So instead of allowing the mother go home for only a couple moments why not let her go and she just do community service? I’ve seen a lot of people commit crimes and have to volunteer their services working for the city. It happens in movies all of the time. Then she will be able to actively be in her child’s life but also be able to serve for the crime that she did commit. For example, the mother could feed the hungry, supply the less fortunate with items that they need, volunteer at a local Goodwill, Dream Center or similar organizations such as those, or the mother could pick up garbage and or plastics or wastes in different communities. And if the jail or prisons need proof that the mother is actually doing her time outside of jail, I believe that they could possibly take her to these areas. That way no one would be able to say that she wasn’t serving her time. I’m a mommy’s girl and could not imagine how that would be being away from my mother for a long period of time. Even when my mother dropped me off for an hour over my grandparents I wasn’t feeling that. I feel that a mother should be able to see her child do anything. Such as going off to kindergarten, kindergarten graduation, grade school, high school, college etc. The mother birthed you so of course so she’ll want to see everything. Yes a crime was committed but a mother’s love is very important so I feel community service should be available.
ReplyDeleteokurrr007
I agree with this, but I also feel as if the mother commits a crime, she should to the time. It’s hard when a mother gets separated from her child/children. But doing the crime, she put herself and her kids in that type of situation when she committed the crime because she should’ve thought about her kids first. On the other hand, I do agree with the program I like it because some mothers do miss the most special moments in their kid’s life and that’s a once in a lifetime thing to see. I feel that if a mother commits a small crime (Ex: Stealing something because she didn’t have the money to provide for her children) she shouldn’t be put in prison away from her children. Doing 1-5 years, missing out on your child’s life, A child not having a mom because she’s locked up over something small. I don’t think kids should be put in foster homes when a mother gets put in jail. That’s taking them away from their entire family, and if a mother has more than one child all her children get separated from each other. I’m speaking from experience I had to deal with child services. So, I feel as if the children should go with a close family member instead of getting put into a foster home so at least they can still be close to their family and try to know who their mom was, (if she did big time in prison). A crime is a crime regardless of what the situation was. And some mothers shouldn’t be around their kids unless they know they’ve improved because that would be a bad role model to the kids and the kids having to see the lifestyle their mom is living is not good on them.
ReplyDelete-Dbaby007
I agree with you in that the mother committed the crime and should be punished. I also agree that if that the mother committed a small crime such as stealing something to provide for her family she should not be punished to severely. She still should be punished but not be taken away from her children. I enjoyed reading your post. –ClarkKent007
DeleteI agree that if the mother was sent to prison, she should do the time. I also agree that she put herself in that situation. I also think that the mother shouldn't be around the children unless she has improved. It’s important to make sure that the children have a good role model and it’s also important to make sure that they’re safe. -SOCCER31007
DeleteAfter reading this article I am 50/50 on this situation. On one side the mother committed the crime, she has to deal with what she had done. If she really wanted to be there for her child she would not have committed the crime. It sucks that she cannot see her child but like I said she committed the crime and did it to herself. But if she could do her time at home with an ankle monitor it might help the child turn out better. She is still serving her time, even though she is not in a cell at a jail or prison her freedom is limited. Plus it saves tax payers a lot of money if she does not stay in jail. It also might help the mother stay out of trouble if she was able to see her child on a daily basis. She would have something to stay out of trouble for. On the other side I understand that a child needs their parent to be there for big moments and to be a role model. I saw this first hand with my old neighbor. This kid had everything going for him. He was smart, talented, and athletic, but his mother could not stop going to jail. With every time she went to jail I saw he changed a little. First it was not showing up to practice, then he just stop going out for sports. After a while he started to drink and do drugs. He was following in his mother’s footsteps. The last time I talked to him he had gotten arrested for fighting. Maybe if his mother had been in his life for more of his big moments he might have turned out different. Like I said I am 50/50 on this situation. There are too many variables and what ifs for me to be on one side. -ClarkKent007
ReplyDeleteI believe it is important for a child do have a mother and and a mother has a special impact on a child's life... but the mother committed a crime. I don't want to sound callus or insensitive but I don't like giving out special treatment to criminals. Especially if the haven't done anything to show that they deserve it! just being a mother in itself dose not warrant special treatment. Although it is unfortunate being a mouther in prison may have an added effect on the mother. missing precious moments with your child because your mistake or crime landed you in prison may be a way to "learn your lesson". This goes for fathers as well. I believe having a father as a child is equally important. I am unaware if there are treatments like this for incarcerated fathers. But if a father can't get this then a mouther shouldn't either. 11bravo007
ReplyDeleteThis article helped me gain an understanding of how incarcerating mothers has a negative effect on both the mother and their families. Like it was stated in the article, mothers can miss some of the most important parts of their lives, such as their child’s first words or any major events that they may participate in. Children need their mothers to be present in their lives, especially during the younger stage of their lives. I believe that the idea of creating alternatives to incarceration for these mothers is an amazing idea and should be put into effect throughout the country. Incorporating things like serving sentences at home under electric monitoring and supervision, as well as intensive community supervision are plausible substitutes for incarceration. Also, these would help allow mothers to be able to have the chance to be present and involved in the moments of their children’s’ lives. Furthermore, these substitutes to incarceration have the ability to save taxpayer money and also save children from the additional collateral consequences of being a child in the foster care system. By being allowed to be under intensive community supervision, mothers would not have to serve as much time in jail and therefore, it would not cost as much money to keep them locked up. Also, with the presence of their mothers thanks to electric monitoring and supervision, children would be able to be taken care of at their homes and not have to be put into the foster care system. Incarcerating women that are mothers is a bigger problem than people think. By incarcerating mothers, special moments in both the mother’s and the child’s life are missed and cannot be repeated. If alternatives are substituted in for the jail time these mothers are supposed to serve, these special moments will no longer be missed, taxpayer money can be saved, and children won’t have to be placed in the foster care system.
ReplyDelete-Fozz007
I completely agree with you in the sense that thus article touched on how incarcerating mothers has a negative effect on both the mother and their families. With the tradition program the children might get to see there mothers for a few minutes and there might even be glass between them. If the mother is willing to stay on the right path a think I would completely agree with alternative sentencing.
DeleteRHB007
Parenting is very important. I think Washington’s FOSA made a great decision to let parents replace some of their sentence for time to be out with their children seeing them in those important moments. I have had experience with one of my parents being incarcerated. Not having one of your parents can make a big impact on your life. With the parent not being at home with the child can hurt the child the most. My dad went to prison in 2010 and has just been released early this year. Not being able to see me grow up, walk across the stage on graduation, be there for my cotillion, etc. As they get out of jail they have to try and adapt to their child all grown up now. Everybody makes mistakes in their lives and they should have second chances. The parent being at home around the child is a reminder to them of why they need to make good decisions. Like the article states, the rate of people that have got the privilege to the PSA (Parenting Sentencing Alternatives) program and had to get sent back to jail is nine percent. These facts prove that the PSA program is very affective a re-offending. This program has shown to be beneficial to the community by providing services by offenders that would not otherwise be completed. Besides, jails and prisons are already overcrowded, and they should save the room for people that have done major crimes. It also costs the state lots of money to have all those people in jails; having to pay for medicine, food, gas and electric, water, etc., it’s just more of everything. The more inmates they have also means the more staff they need. With that being said, sending them to jail can save lots of tax dollars when there are many different alternative punishments they can have than incarcerations. -pieface007
ReplyDeleteI don’t always think some punishments are fair. On the other side I think that having a child for most mothers would be a great incentive for them to behave and be productive members of society in order to be there for their children. It was very staggering to see that over 147,000 children have had a mother in state or federal prison in 2007 and the fact that it was a 231% increase from 1991 is astronomical. I will say that I like Washington state Department of corrections program Giving eligible mothers the option to still be a parent in their kids lives once again this goes back to the incentive to get out and stay out of jail or prison. In the article I like how it points out many of these individuals will finish out their sentences at least the last year of their sentence under electronic bracelet monitoring in their homes with their families. I do believe as long as the mother can’t stay out of trouble and provide for her children she should have the option to do so. However I am not saying that every mother should get that opportunity if the crime was not a victimless crime or if it was a violent crime I think that they should have more restrictions and if they violate terms of release they should have more restrictions. Also you can look at it from a financial point of view because others will remain in the community and their kids will remain with their mothers saving taxpayers money for the child be going into the foster care program.
ReplyDeleteRHB007
I like what you had to say. From what I gather, you believe that there should be certain crimes that call the for incarceration. It makes sense to have or maintain a set of standards if programs like the one implemented in Washington can work effectively. It takes time to see results, but time costs money. ---YouMustAcquit007
DeleteI definitely agree with what you said. I agree that the type of crime should also depend on the program qualifications. I hope we can continue to see improvements with this program, and maybe get it in other states as well. stlblues007
DeleteI watched my 5 year old cousin go throw continus tantrums, crying, lashing out and, getting kicked out of kindergarten all because his mother was incarcerated. His mom has been incarcerated in and out of his life for the past 2 years. Everytime she would go away that would be his behavior. Of course when your that age all you want is your mom and sometimes your dad but, primarily your mom because she is supposed to be the one that makes everything better. His mom wanted to do better for her son however, she just couldn't get rehabilitated back into society. This caused her to continue doing what she did to end up in jail. While in jail however she did get a GED and learned job ready skills so she could be better equipped for life. She also learned life skills and how to be a better mom. Although in jail or prison for a crime, there needs to be more programs to help people stay out of jail and have a better chance at life. Study shows that the more programs and help inmates have while in the system, will decrease their chances of going back. My cousins mom has now been out of jail for 6 years and is working to get a bachelor's degree in Psychology, and it's all from getting the resources and help she did while in jail.
ReplyDelete21Miami007
From what i gather, if i'm correct, you're saying that there are ways to rehabilitate and keep mothers out of prison without changing the system but instead bettering it? And if so i strongly strongly agree. Not necessarily does the system need to be changed but it needs to be bettered so it can do what it is intended to and rehabilitate and prepare not JUST mothers but all criminals for life afterwards. I don't believe mothers should be treated much more special than any other criminal. They are all people with families. Some with younger siblings or nieces and nephews, some with grandparents that need care, some just with family in general that they love an miss and i don't think they deserve any less than a mother missing her child. Everyone has their own circumstance and everyone should be focused on. The system needs improved NOT changed.
Deletegray007
All in all it all boils down to two things: 1. How much money will it save? 2. How beneficial will it be society as a whole. Money is everything, especially to the tax paying citizens in this country. For it is tax dollars that are spent to feed, house, and pay for incarcerated mothers to give birth. There are states, such as Washington who are trying alternatives forms of punishment, like community service, ankle monitors, house arrest, etc for mothers who are pregnant and have committed a crime. Studies have shown that these alternatives, are both cost-effective, and help reduce the occurrence of future illegal acts. A child should never be a part from their mother, even if a mother commits a crime, but there is a line that needs to be drawn, in terms of what crimes are considered automatic incarceration. That is where the trouble will be. Pre-trial departure the program that is being used up in Washington state for these women.
ReplyDeleteI am all for keeping families together, kids need their parents in their lives, especially their mothers. Statistics, have shown that children with mothers who are incarcerated or have been incarcerated are at a higher risk of committing crimes and sending time behind bars. It makes more sense to do something that could possibly help reduce the number of people in the jails and prisons across the country. I believe that more programs like the one in Washington state need to be implemented in other states. In order to show concrete evidence for programs for mothers, or expectant mothers are working and beneficial. As stated before it all boils down to how much money will be saved and how beneficial this program and more like it will actually be. It sounds crazy but it is reality. –YouMustAcquit007.
I agree like we are so far in debt it’s crazy, and when cost about 40,000 to house an inmate with making sure they eating properly, getting Medicare, and make sure they living condition is somewhat suitable and maintainable, we really can’t afford to keep housing inmates especially if it’s for a small crime where they can easily get supervision and admit they messed up and accept it and take their punishment as an adult. It always would change the views on the criminal justice on a whole if we are able to limit how family where destroying by one taking probably they sole provided, and two simply they loved one who probably is the only thing that is holding they family together.
DeleteStatechamp007
I feel as though this article sugar coats or handles the situation these mothers are in with kid gloves a little more than necessary. I agree largely that a mother AND a father (that of which this article does not mention very much which caught my attention is this being offered to fathers too and if so why are they not being brought up equally?) play the primary role in molding a child into who they become and it would make sense to feel the way the author does about taking a mother or father out of a child's life. That being said the fact that a parent plays that large of a role in molding a child into what they become should be just as much reason to disagree with this article as it is to support it. These mothers and fathers had children before they went to jail and/or prison, they had children before they decided to commit the crime they did. They knew the risk of whatever it is they did and they weighed that risk and ultimately chose that it was worth it to lose their child over breaking that law. Now obviously there are extenuating circumstances and every case is different in some way and not necessarily did they have a choice or maybe they broke the law to provide for that child ect. and cases like that are different of course. More minor cases are obviously different and this article may apply to those situations much better but i do not believe we should group all mothers with a criminal background together. i also very strongly disagree with the comparison of a hardworking mother like Serena williams who is pursuing her career (and has every right to do so mother or not) and missed a single moment of her child's life to a mother who chose to break the law over her child and for that was put in prison and is now missing an extended and consecutive amount of time and moments in her child's life. Comparing a hard working mother who is chasing her dreams and raising a child at the same time to a criminal who blatantly chose to give her child up for whatever it is she found to be worthy is completely ridiculous in my personal opinion. Thats like saying having a life outside motherhood is a crime and cant be done. Now again there are extenuating circumstances and not all of the criminals just gave up their kid like it was that easy but not all committed minor offenses either. There are killers and rapists and arsonists and much more who are intelligent and charming and convincing and are in prison and are mothers and could easily take advantage of this and use this child as no more than a leverage point to shorten or make their sentence easier not to mention once out these mothers could influence this child to follow in her footsteps and then the entire ideal this program has set out to follow is pointless. I am a 100% believer that people change and they make mistakes but i also believe if they are in prion they are certainly there for a reason. All in all i am just saying they are sugar coating the fact that these women are still criminals and chose to be. Just because they have a child doesn't necessarily make them a mother and that should be thoroughly considered.
ReplyDeletegray007
My parents were never sent to prison so I don't know what it’s like to have a parent in prison. I think it’s important for a child to have a parent figure in their life. I can see how this is important because you don't want to miss out on important things in your children's life. I think it’s nice that they’re trying to keep the parents involved with their kids but when the article mentioned that it would show the incarcerated parent what it would be like if they didn't commit the crime that they committed, they still committed a crime and it doesn't change anything. I think they should still serve the time they were sentenced in prison because they knew what they were doing. It would probably keep them from committing another crime but they still did it. I understand that no child wants their parent in prison but they still committed a crime. I think there could be visiting days for the parent and the child but I don’t really agree with the parent finishing out their sentence at home. The article said that 540 parents were able to complete this and I think that’s great but I think that they should spend their sentence at prison. I was surprised that in 2007 there was 147,000 children who had mothers in prison. I was also surprised that there was an increase from 1991 and it increased by two hundred and thirty one percent. I understand that everyone has their opinions on this article and I can see the pros and cons of this article but the parent knows they made a mistake when they committed the crime. Before they committed the crime they should've thought about how this would affect their children. I think they should show their children that if you commit a crime, you have to deal with the consequences. -SOCCER31007
ReplyDeleteAll children need their Parents in the life in some type of form but especially from the infant stage through your teens and into your earlier adulthood. As a mother caring a baby for 9 months builds a bond stronger than anything so, being there to see the little things is more than just little things. So, when an parent goes into solitary confinement and have to leave there child or children behind for and long period of time then return, it doesn’t only hurt the mother but it hurts the child’s or children’s not just emotionally but mentally because they get used to seeing them everyday then poof they’re gone, and when they do return they act more as if they don’t want to recreate that bond with you because they are afraid of you disappearing again. Reading this article and being interested in some type of criminal justice field you start to feel for the mother that are or once where included in this statistic, like aren’t there other ways for mother to do their time and not have to see their little children through a glass or in a visiting room or miss the memorable moment that you can only experience once. The state of Washington has a really good plan in place that helps solves this problem, I feel that yes a crime was committed but it’s a crime where it wasn’t super serious to where she’s have to go into the system then potentially have her child go into the system as well, why not get put on extreme court supervision, where she yes have to get punished for her crime but not to the point where her whole life is taken away from her which is of course her child or children. Just think if a child see’s there parent taken into the system how higher the chances of them going into the system or even becoming terribly troubled.
ReplyDeleteStatechamp007
Parents are an important role for a child’s life and that should not be taken away completely. I agree with this article because mothers care to see their kids first steps and other milestones. I think that fathers should be seen the same way we see a mother as well because they are just as important. I also think that this privilege should not be given to just any regular mother or father that is incarcerated. I think it should depend on their offense and how safe they are to the community or will be. It’s kind of hard to wrap my head around the idea of being a parent and ending up in jail because you would think that they would want to do things correctly to not be in that situation. It is really sad having to see kids going to different foster homes while their parents are in prison. It could probably lower crime rate from younger children, whose parents are there to look out for them after getting out of prison. The nurturing of a parent is important for children because they are born wanting attention and love. Also it is known that jails and prisons are overcrowded and I think that would help to make room for other criminals. Also for those parents who are there for there 1st offense, I think it would be good to give them that opportunity so they do not get involved with other criminals. The cost to maintain a jail or prison is so high that it would help to have those parents at home trying to change their lives than sitting in a cell. I think this would be something that could really help the community as a whole. Where there are more parents involved in their children’s life and not getting into crimes where that relationship with their kids might be broken. taco007
ReplyDeleteI agree that seeing your kid go through several different foster homes could really take a toll on a parent. Depression with parents in jail is definitely a factor that we have to keep in mind for not only the child, but the parent. I also agree that the type of crime committed should play a big role in whether or not they serve jail time. We can't just let every first time offender serve their time at home. -BuffaloChickenDip007
DeleteI can absolutely see both sides to this argument. 1. If the mother wanted to be with her child she most definitely thought twice about her actions knowing that it will jeopardize her relationship and bonding time with their child. I get sometimes you have to do what you have to do but you have to learn to put your babies needs before yours and to set a better example on how to be a good person and to watch them grow into a young adult. Even if there isn't a father figure in the picture, that honestly shouldn't give you a reason to start doing drugs or bringing bad men into your life, but to show them sometimes all you have is yourself and you have to be independent in your life and do things the right way. Now on the other hand I think this is a pretty good idea to have a program like this because it gives the mother that time an growth with their son or daughter and to see their accomplishments like walking and saying their first words, I would assume that would be every parents dream to be apart of.
ReplyDeleteMessi007
When reading the article, I totally could see both sides too and how they should think twice about their actions. I also think that it’s more than that because a lot of people are born in a household of crime. They had grown up around it and trying to leave that life would be difficult especially if they are threatened. taco007
DeleteChildren need a mother figure in their life, so I really like this idea. Taking a mother away from her child for long periods of time can really affect the development of the kid, and will also take a big toll on the family. Every mom wants to see their kid take it's first steps, and speak it's first words. This is a once in a life time opportunity for the parent, and shouldn't be taken away just because of a short prison sentence. So if there is a safe way to make that happen when the mother has been convicted of a hefty crime, then I don't see why not. The evidence backs it up too, showing a low 9% of moms going back to jail when they complete this program. Not only that, but it saves a whole lot of money. Every inmate costs thousands of dollars to house and feed, all of which is saved when being put through this intense monitoring program. There really isn't any downside I can see to this, as long as the moms keep learning their lesson. If it's that parent's first offense I think this type of punishment should be looked into more. I'm a big believer in second chances, and this is the perfect way to do it. I imagine it's a lot easier to stay motivated too when the moms are with their kids, rather than being locked up. I think they could take this idea and run with it, giving more first time offenders extreme supervision and community service hours as an alternative to jail time. Of course you would have to raise the penalties for a second offense while on this program to ensure the public safety. This could make a big dent in our national debt and would help our overcrowded prison problems. Not only that, but it would help the relationship between the government and the public. -BuffaloChickenDip007
ReplyDeleteI think Parenting Sentencing Alternatives are a good idea. Not only does the parent have the opportunity to be in the child's life, but the child benefits from the parents being there. Childhood development is something that has been proven to shape most of your personality. If only one of your parents are there for you, then you aren't getting all the attention and care that you may need to compete with other children that are learning from both parents. PSA’s allow for both parents to be present, working with the child, taking care of the child so that the child develops more. Also, it helps to have both parents in the child’s life, as long as the parent is helpful to the child and doesn’t hinder the child's ways of thinking, playing, or living a regular life. The PSA’s allow for parents to be there on important life events, such as the child's first steps, the child's first words, and even something like the child's first day of school. It will give the child assurance seeing both parents there in his or her life, learning lessons from both the parents to maximize possible development. I believe that this is also a way for the parents to stay out of trouble. The numbers for parents returning to jail for getting into trouble again are very low, saying that the parents want to do good to be there for the child as much as possible, and not to skip anymore life events that they could miss by going back to jail. I believe that PSA’s are helpful to both the parent in terms of finding and needing a reason to stay out of trouble, and good for the kid from the point of view saying that the child needs as much attention and care to help brain development. Jar007
ReplyDeleteI’m about 50/50 on this article. On one hand, I understand how a mother being with her child is important, but on the other, I believe if you committed the crime, you need to serve your time and punishment for it. I haven’t had a parent be incarcerated, but I know what it’s like to have a parent who’s absent. It’s not easy and it can really affect a child throughout life. Having an absent mother or father could also cause a child to act out, and possibly get incarcerated like their parents. I do think the FOSA program would be a good idea. The women would still have to technically serve time, but they can at least watch their children grow up. I also feel as if the 9-12% that ended up back to prison, could increase. Just because some women get pregnant and give birth, doesn’t mean they actually care about their child. I’ve seen people choose drugs and the wrong people over their own kids. Even having a mother around doesn’t matter if they won’t be there for their kids. Some parents might be in the FOSA program, but still try to find a way around it, and continue doing the things that landed them in prison to begin with. It’s a good idea overall, but then again there’s many ways it could backfire. stlblues007
ReplyDeletehaving a mother in your life is very helpful. It is needed I believe. a child can make such a big impact on anyone but especially their mothers. having a bond with someone is very important to any child. I personally believe that mothers should be able to see their child and interact with them occasionally. Some women aren't in for very serious crimes and it is very uncalled for that they get their children taken away! Taking away a child will do nothing but start a fire between people. a program where they actually look at the minor and the not so serious crimes and maybe to teach these women how to interact with their children would be great. Not all mothers can be amazing but everyone who cares for their child should at least get a chance to prove themselves. yes, a child needs their mother but the mother also needs their child -freckles007
ReplyDeleteI understand all the views in this article but I am a firm believer in if you do the crime, you do the time. It is extremely disheartening knowing that there are tons of mothers in prisons that their children are going to the system or have gone to someone else, such as a family member, etc. Every child deserves and needs their parents. Any mother separated from her child who have an incredibly hard time if they truly love their kid. But these women are going to prison for a reason. Just like if a 20 year old robs a bank and his mother has cancer, he will go to prison regardless. That was his decision he made and he gets no free ride because his mother is ill. I don't have any first hand experience with prison. I don't have any family members that were sent away or had children involved with that mix. I do believe there should be a way for mother's in prison to be involved with their child though. Such as helping them with their schoolwork or reading to them. Although I do not believe women should get special privileges if they have children while they're in prison, I do believe there should be something set in place at all prisons for the wellness of the women. Kids being separated from a parent, is incredibly tough. My father didn't have a dad growing up so he had no real male model, father figure in his life to help him when he became a dad. He learned everything on his own and he will admit he has tripped way more than kids that had dad's growing up. I also have an issue with the fact that not every single woman that gets out of prison and abuses the system will truly care to the fullest extent of their child. We see it daily in America, choosing drugs over children and illegal activities over reading a book to their baby. -notacop911
ReplyDeleteI agree that people shouldn't get special treatment for a crime because of issues going on in that persons life. I agree that women should be able to interact with their kids as well. Although, I don't mind the programs they are offering to these women. They can only be put on house arrest if they only have a year or less left in prison. So some have already went a couple years without seeing their children, and most are in their for petty drug crimes. Although I will agree with you on the whole rather sell dope, then read to my kid as they fall asleep. This does happen a crap ton. I think that with the ankle bracelets, it should be treated like parole. Regular, random check-ins and searches of the property. If anything is going on, then the women gets yanked back into prison, and not allowed to benefit from these programs again. Kind of like bail bond companies!
Delete^~^Itis007
This article focused on the issue with moms being incarcerated, while still having a baby at home to take care of. The women arrested although having kids at home, doesn’t surprise me. Seems like a common thing to happen. I agree with the fact that these mothers are much needed at home to take care of their children. Maybe there’s no one else to take care of them, like no family and friends. What happens when there is no one else to take care of the child. Child Protective Services (CPS) has to take the poor kid to a adoption home, or foster care places. Every mother wants those precious moments with their kids, and not being there for it doesn’t just affect the parent, it also affects the kids. Those two new sentences programs are great for mothers. Instead of staying confined for another year, they can just go home, on an ankle bracelet, and serve their remainder time out that way. This makes it to where the mom is able to take care of her kid, and also get to experience the kids “first times.” That might not seem that big of a deal, but ask any mother and she would tell you otherwise. It’s also a big deal for the kids. Having a mom that is going missing every couple of weeks is for sure to affect the kid in a negative way. Hopefully the children have another parent, or guardian to take care of them, but most don’t, and even if they did, it’s never good for a kid to hardly see their own mom. Especially if they are hearing stories about their own mother. I also like how less than 15%, on both programs, of women who do these sentencing programs are actually going back to prison! I think that these programs are showing mothers how important it is to be able to take care of their child.
ReplyDelete^~^Itis007
When reading this article, this topic really gave me some mixed feelings that I personally have never even thought about before. I think that a mother is extremely important in a child's life, and I believe that every child needs their mother. My opinion on the matter in this article is that depending on the crime that was committed, the mother should not be taken away from her child completely if sent away to prison. There should be some sort of system that allows for the mother and child to be able to be with one another. If the mother committed a crime more serious such as first degree murder, I do not think that the mother should even be in that child's life. The mixed feelings that I received from this article is that I understand completely that a mother being in a child's life is important, but on the other hand, I also think that a crime is a crime and the person who was convicted should have some sort of punishment that fits to the crime. I also could see where a child may even be better off without the mother in its life. My stand point on the situation and on this article is that I believe that we should do whatever the government thinks is best for the child. KiiNG007
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you mentioned about that privilege should not be given depending on the crime. Also if the mother isn’t an ideal mother than maybe the child is better off. For the most part I understood where you came from but when you said we should do what the government thinks is best for the child isn’t always best for the child. Look at the foster care system ran by the government. Where lives are also being destroyed being in that system. taco007
DeleteI agree with what you are saying somewhat. I do not completely agree with your statement saying that we should do whatever the government thinks is right for the child. The State of Illinois right now have many children in foster care. Some are placed with foster parents, group homes and even with some relatives. With the things the parents have to do in order to get their children back are not that hard. If they do what they are supposed to do for a short amount of time they are eligible to get their child back. Once the child get placed back in to the care of the mother, the mother can turn back to her old ways. If she turns back to her old ways it could potentially harm the child, or put the child at some type of risk. Right now Illinois is trying to get the children in the system back with their parents, which is a good thing. My thing with it all is what about the children that do not need to be with the biological parents. Let's say those biological parents are causing more harm than good things. Yes we are human and we make mistakes. However, we can not call them mistakes if they keep happening over and over again. jw007
DeleteReading article I agree with some of what is said and I feel like it is a great thing to have the programs Parenting Sentencing Alternatives (PSAs), the Family and Offender Sentencing Alternative (FOSA) and the Community Parenting Alternative (CPA). It is very important for a mother to see her child take their first steps, crawl, say momma or dada for the first time. As children grow older and their mother is not present in their life, it could potently hurt the child as well as the mother of the child. I find those programs good for the mother and the child. I also say that because with how high recidivism rate are in prisons and jails are so much higher than 12%. 12% is the rate at which mothers return to prison for a new felony. Also a plus is that it costs less to have the community-based alternative then to house an individual in prison for multiple years. However, I feel like the programs can cause a debate with what crimes the mother has committed to qualify to be in the program and what crime committed would keep her from qualifying. I think that mothers should be apart of their children's life just the same as fathers. jw007
ReplyDeleteI think the FOSA program has the potential to be a very good alternative to traditional incarceration, however the program also relies on the parents’ ability to adhere to the rules. If the parent has committed a first-time offense then this may be the way to go. Obviously the current system doesn’t take into consideration the children who may be losing their parents. This program will take them into consideration and help ensure kids have their parents in their lives. As the article mentions, the current prison system is very costly to taxpayers. Prisons have to buy uniforms, pay salaries, feed prisoners, train guards, and much more. Think of it like feeding pets. Imagine only having to feed two animals instead of four. Suddenly you have more money available for other things, like gas for your car, etc. The FOSA program also reduces the number of inmates in prisons. That means less people requiring food, bedding, healthcare, etc. The parent would have to pay for their own things while being held accountable for their actions. The FOSA program, as mentioned in the article, can also keep kids out of the foster care program, which is another thing paid for with tax money. Less kids in foster care means fewer mouths to feed. The money being saved by not housing kids and inmates can be put toward other things, like upgrades to schools, or maybe a new fire engine, or better parks for the kids of the parents who are in the FOSA program. On the other side, this program isn’t going to totally cut costs. Electronic monitoring equipment is still an electronic device that transmits a signal. It’s going to be expensive, but the devices should only be a one-time purchase that can be reused with other people in the program.
ReplyDelete-Redranger007