Prison perk

I like Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago's jail-for-pay proposal.  Oh, she calls it, "stay for pay," but let's call it what it is: we lock you up in jail but you pay us for it at the same time.

This isn't meant for ordinary inmates by the way.  Why make the unfortunate ordinary criminals suffer even more after depriving them of liberty.  Instead, it's meant for the well off.  The powerful, the rich, and the influential, all those who, despite being sentenced by society to suffer for their crimes, just don't get the point that they should suffer, and instead insist on a standard of living appropriate for their status.

So, we get reports about how congressmen-turned-rapists, millionaires-turned-murderers, and politicians who were always thieves but turned stupid and had their thievery exposed, end up in jail cells with hotel amenities like air-conditioning, microwave ovens, and nice mattresses and comfortable sheets.

Sometimes, they even get their own vacations, being spotted wandering around the city for a couple of days before returning to their jail cells, and we wonder about how safe our delectable pre-pubescent morsels are from these molesters when we thought all the while they were safely locked away.

Even if not all of them have the moolah to bribe their temporary way out of jail cells, we do know a lot of them get access to medical care pretty fast, they get cellphones and tablets, and for sure, television sets spirited right into their rooms.  Oh, by the way, I am pretty sure it's us taxpayers that foot the bills for their power consumption. So every time they charge their phones and Ipads, the common Filipino who may not even have these gadgets share the cost.

So here is where Senator Miriam is coming from.  Rather than letting the government foot the bill for this gravy, why not charge those who can afford it, if they want it? The philosophy is much like checking into a hospital, I guess. Everybody's headed to the grave - it's really just about with how much style you end up there. So you can choose a private suite to die in, or the charity ward, where the rest of the world can see you bid adieu. Or  "a tout a l'heure,"  to those whom you'll expect to see in the after life.

Similarly, in a penal institution, maybe we can ask the newbie what ward he prefers when he shows up for processing. Off with the handcuffs and on with:

Option A: standard issue orange jumpsuit, for those who wish to join the dancing and choreography sessions for future uploading to Youtube.

Option B: hundred percent cotton pajamas, for those who wish to lounge in the yoga deck and meditate on their formerly miserable lives and how they're so much in a better place now.

Option C: designer D&G lame coveralls that, with a simple tab, can convert to jodhpurs.  This outfit is strictly for those who want to easily switch from suite a la prison to the stables, right in time for a gallop around the paddocks (cunningly designed to wrap around the dance floor and visible from the yoga deck, so a sense of camaraderie can still be instilled among the newfound friends for life).

Of course, options B and C will come with additional fees and charges, designed to spare the taxpayers from the burden of supporting their lifestyle.  Critics will immediately cry out and say, but what about poor people who can't afford it? Aren't we further ingraining the class divide? Aren't we pandering to the wealthy's foibles and quirks? Isn't this another form of economic oppression of the marginalized sectors of society?

Well, I will improve on the Senator's proposal.  Perhaps what we should do is, let's charge Option B and Option C prisoners just a little bit more than necessary. Maybe even a lot more. The excess will then be used to subsidize and better the comforts extended to Option A inhabitants. Better medical care.  Better food.  (Better pay for wardens and guards). Then we sort of equalize the economic disparity and the creature comforts.

Move over, staycations.  Jailcations will now be all the rage.