No--you would only go to Riker's if you were convicted (unless, of course, you were sent upstate to, for example, Attica, Ossining, or Dannemora).<br><br>
If you are arrested in NYC, you go to Central Booking in the borough you were arrested in (so if you were collared in Manhattan, you would go to Manhattan Central Booking, if you were collared in the Bronx, you'd go to Bronx Central Booking, etc) while you await arraignment. Some precincts sometimes lodge their prisoners at the precinct prior to arraignment, though this is typically in the precincts that are hooked into the community court systems.<br><br>
Just to clarify.
Hmmm...not to debate the issue, but if you're arrested for a crime serious enough to have bail or bail is denied and you do not post you are off to Rikers pre-conviction.<br><br>
I have had some hoodlum friends <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">
It's true...however, the majority of NYC ADAs typically won't push for a perp to be remanded, and NYC judges are by and large political animals and it's generally a struggle to get them to remand perps, even violent ones with a flight risk.<br><br>
That aside, my original point was simply that you do not automatically end up on Riker's when arrested in NYC.
I'm of two minds with this. One, it's a great way to protest and bring about change. Two, you could really hurt yourself, and survival is the only time I agree with animal consumption, but certainly not when you're imprisoned by other humans that have the ability to feed you what you choose to eat, and certainly not the excuse for animal food they serve inmates -- that's the lowest quality meat available in America, other than in our schools.
Yes, but veg*nism was not just a matter of principle for these people. It was their a big part of their religion. And the government isn't supposed to infridge on religious practice in any way. That's what's wrong here.
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Robert</i><br><br><b>I am not certain of this... but has veganism been given religious status? Is it recognized as a religion by the courts? To my knowledge it has not been recognized as such.</b></div>
It doesn't matter. It's not the veganism. It's judaism. Did you read the article? For some reason, veganism is part of their judaism. And they're being prevented from practicing it. People have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want. And this is what religion they have. It doesn't matter if it's been recognized as any "official" religion. It's still religion.
animals particularly domesticated ones do have a very special place within the jewish religion, but veg*nism as it is is not a doctorine of tthe faith to any extent of the imagination. so it is understandible in the legal system that they did not win. and if the prison is already offering vegitarian entrees, between that and some peanut butter and bread when what is offered doesnt meet there standards they can subsist quite well, remeber they are being punished. to me this seems to be an extension of how they got in there. oh well. I would definately have a problem if no veg options existed but they are there.<br><br><br><br>
Oatmeal, I think that's a great question. Certainly one would think that if you offer an alternative to one group, then you've already opened the door to offer an alternative for other groups.<br><br><br><br>
Still, I have to wonder why convicted criminals are given any special dietary considerations, or any special considerations whatsoever, beyond medical reasons.
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Robert</i><br><br><b>Yes, I read the article. However, veganism is not a "standard" element of Judaism and, therefore, in my opinion, it is invalid to claim religious oppression in this case.</b></div>
Why must it be a "standard" part of Judaism? Should religions be frozen in time? Should each one be legally defined in a court of law? Can nothing be added or subtracted? Can no new religions be formed?<br><br><br><br>
This is what these people religiously believe. They need to be free and protected to practice whatever their religious beliefs are.
it doesnt have to be standard but it has to fit somehow. if someone can bring me the torah and a rabbi and can explain it to me then fine, animals are sacred in the jewish religion but religious laws also say that they are there to be eaten. i cant believe im defending meat eating but im just explaining why the ruling came down as it has it is because there defense really had no basis yes if they were vegetarian muslims they would have one and they wouldnt have needed to go to court they have vegetarian meals already in jail.
I can have religious beliefs without them being codified and falling under some label that the government chooses to recognize, and if those beliefs include an interpretation that calls for veganism, then they should be respected.<br><br><br><br>
Sounds like a ploy to me, but I think inmates should be able eat what they ethically choose to consume. For cryin' out loud, if we're trying to get people to live more ethically, let's put our money where are mouths are.
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by epski</i><br><br><b>if those beliefs include an interpretation that calls for veganism, then they should be respected.<br><br><br><br></b></div>
A forum community dedicated to vegetarian, vegans, and vegetable enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about agriculture, preparation, cooking, recipes, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!