Whether it makes sense economically, it makes sense in regard to justice. People pay consequences for their decisions, her decisions led her to have a certain amount of time to spend in prison, one that she knew would likely outlast her lifespan even without cancer and one for which we knew we'd have to pay.special circumstance for freedom I believe depends on the condition and I believe in her case if her cancer has metastisized to the point where her death is likely to where she wont serve her full sentence why waste taxpayer money? Treating her, feeding her, medicating her, and showering her?
From an economic standpoint it makes no sense. It's like putting money in a broken soda machine.
So her being released means she is truly free? Well to argue that we would have to start another thread. The
I will respond with a question....
If someone has metastisize cancer what difference would it make if they're free?
Which is taxpayer funded. I'm good with her getting aggressive treatment in jail, there is no need for her to be released. Either way we're paying for it.
Taxpayer funded including her taxes, not just everyone else's.
She is not the first case of someone released for a terminal disease. I think factors such as the type of crime, psychological profile of the inmate (e.g Is the inmate a psychotic killer) or if the inmate has expressed "good behavior" not to mention good legal counsel all factor in these situations.
As if Phil's marriage has anything to do with showing compassion to a dying woman.
Weak.
Eat some protein...
Ok...Thanks for insulting me. You see, I was very polite with you and actually thought your reasoning was quite stupid and used an example of the broken soda machine to prevent me calling your reasoning stupid, but I sense you want to slang insults. Ok well we'll agree to disagree. Either way, the lady is going to die and it really does not concern me regarding her fate.
Ah yes, didn't do your medical research eh? Hence is why I'll discontinue my participation.