This case reminds me of the cases of (Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut) where the Court’s decision was based on the right to avoid reproducing and the importance of allowing people to decide whether or not to procreate. In the case at issue, the judge could have decided to sentence Salazar to a prison term, during which she wouldn’t have been able to reproduce, thus, the judges sentence was the most logical one. The judge imposed a less severe sentence of what that prison time would have been, by ordering Salazar not to have a child. The judge’s arguments, in my opinion, comes from a solid foundation. Someone incapable of taking care of their children and allowing others to harm them or abuse them should not by any chance be granted the opportunity to procreate again. Someone like Salazar needs to learn to take care of the children she currently has before bringing another child to this world. Either penalty imposed in this case would have frustrated the defendant’s desire to reproduce before and during her sentence. Another point to mention…show more content… This involves the risk that those who opt in for parole will never have the chance to rebuild their lives again. Upon release, they will fall victims to homelessness, social maladjustment or drugs and alcohol abuse. For example, if someone is sentenced to 50 years in prison with a chance for parole after the first 30 years, chances are that person will never be able to adapt to a newly renovated society and changes in the criminal justice system. This depends on how old the person is when released from prison. Another disadvantage is that the criminal justice system has to keep involved in the parolee’s life, because monitoring for a certain period thereafter is usually taken in place from the moment the individual leaves the prison. Thus, monitoring a parolee’s life affects the public financially and the detriment of individual
