The Issue: A requirement for New York sentencing judges to visit a jail or prison at least once a year.

It’s wrong to mandate New York judges to visit jails and prisons at least once a year (“NY judges ‘jailed,’ ” June 17).

This would prejudice judges in favor of defendants and convicted criminals. What about the crime victims? Why not order the judges to attend at least one wake and funeral or burial for a murder victim? Or spend a day with an orphan?

Yes, the jails are tough places, but this should not color how a judge rules.

Mark Seitelman

Manhattan

The requirement for sentencing judges in New York to visit jails and prisons annually is reinforcement of the widely held belief that Democrats in New York City and across the country firmly support criminals over law-abiding citizens, taxpayers, and victims of crime.

The new law does not say that judges will be required to visit graves of victims, families of victims or children left motherless. Victims don’t count when the Democrats believe the criminal may be subject to day-old milk. When is this insanity going to end?

Joseph Grassi

Port St. Lucie, Fla.

The rule that judges must visit prisons is an effort to generate sympathy for thieves, rapists, murders and all those committing crimes against others.

A more balanced approach would be to have those judges visit the morgue to view the bodies of innocent murder victims, attend group sessions of the victims of rape and abuse or spend time with the families of police officers slain on duty.

George Kooluris

Bronxville

Chief Judge Rowan Wilson should rethink his pro-criminal mandate that state judges must visit prisons and jails each year to keep them “better connected to what transpires after sentencing.”

I suggest Rowan instruct judges to visit the hospitals and cemeteries of victims of the out-of-control crime that put these savages in prison in the first place. That is, of course, provided they actually go to prison at all.

Greg Cantiello

Parrish, Fla.

If judges are going to visit anyone, they should meet with victims’ families over the years to see how crimes have impacted their lives. Then they could better understand what these criminals have done.

Mindy Rader

New City

The Issue: Mixed martial arts event UFC Freedom 250 hosted on the South Lawn of the White House.

I’ve never been a fan of UFC fighting, but watching the display at the White House has turned my head in a different direction — It was fabulously spectacular (“Big birthday ‘bash,’ ” June 16).

I’m willing to bet good money that even the staunchest progressive liberals like Al Sharpton — who complained that such an event invoked memories of slaves sparring to the death— were secretly watching and cheering in the privacy of their own homes.

Arthur Saginian

Santa Clarita, Calif.

A knockout in a UFC fight is when one fighter is unconscious. The winner of a dog fight is when one dog is critically injured. Yet dog fighting is a felony. Ironic?

Despite its popularity, the president actually promoting this barbaric sport was unseemly and inappropriate.

Jessy Friedman

Marlboro, NJ

Alan Rechtschaffen’s defense of the UFC fight at the White House was wrong (“Trump’s UFC Bout: Behind the Fight,” PostOpinion, June 13).

This disgusting no-holds-barred fighting belongs back in the Roman gladiator days and should never have been held on White House grounds.

It’s rare I agree with most any Democrat, but Rep. Don Beyer had it right: It’s a sacrilege to the White House.

Frank Higbie

Bound Brook, NJ

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.