I just saw a program on the history channel on the history of Louisiana’s Angola prison. One of the inmates they profiled was a convicted murderer who had entered the prison in 1934. He is now 89, and likely to die there. They made reference to him and many others like him being in the $1,000,000 club, that being the amount of taxpayer money that has been spent to feed, house, and pay for various public defenders and other judicial processes for these prisoners. The warden also made the point that with todays tough sentencing guidelines (especially in Lousiana), that prisons were slowly going to turn into “expensive old folks homes”.
It seems to me that it would make sense, both from a humanitarian and economic standpoint, to set an upper age limit to a life sentence in prison, something like 80-90 years old. After this age, the chances that a person would be a threat to society are greatly reduced, and room could be made for young, vicious criminals that truly do need to be locked away from the rest of us.
I would be interested to hear what opinions other posters have on this.
I had always been in favour of capital punishment. But after seeing a program on A&E, I saw how people on Death Row had changed over the dozen or so years they had been waiting for execution. It seems unreasonably cruel to me. I STILL think that there are some people who “need killing”; but I think the list of crimes that would require such a punishment would be exceedingly short. Also, it would be extremely difficult to pass laws that would allow us to get rid of the “mad dogs” in a timely manner, and hand out more moderate sentences to others. And of course, “if we can keep them on Death Row for 15 years, why not just keep them instead of killing them?”
Which brings us to life sentences and geriatric prisoners. Let’s say we do release them when they reach the age of 80 or 90 (if they make it that long). The State will have to support them anyway. I’d guess that the costs involved would be at leasst as much or more than keeping them in the prison. Also, there will be people who will not forgive a criminal for the wrongs the criminal did to them. I doubt our politicians will go against the lobby that is sure to manifest itself in that case.
How about a compromise? Instead of keeping a geriatric prisoner in a maximum-security lock-up, how about moving them to a “secure retirement facility”? They would still be in custody, the costs should be the same or less, it would be more humane to confine the elderly prisoners to a facility instead of a cell, they’d be too old to seriously try for escape, and the maximum-security prisons could be used for the “young and viscious”.
On what do you base this statement? Has there been an actual study of rates of recidivism among the elderly ex-con population? Or are you just making an assumption?
It seems to me that a person who has been incarcerated for “life” and is “80 or 90”
1> Was sentenced that way for a reason, usually by a jury, because they committed a very serious crime.
2> Is unlikely to have the skills, emotionally, socially, or professionally (you don’t think they are going to live on Social Security do you?) to survive independently.
I would be wholeheartedly in favor of JohnnyLA’s “secure retirement facility”. That sounds logical and reasonable to me.
Well, I for one am scared sh*tless by the idea of 90-year-old toothless geriatrics being released into the world. Can’t you envision a great-grampa-esque frail figure of a man, hobbling along in a dark alley in YOUR town, just waiting for his chance to tap you to death with his umbrella while calling you a young whippersnapper? shudder
Apologies for the typos. “leasst” and “viscious”. I knead a speel shecker!
My kneejerk reaction to the “secure retirement facility” suggestion was: Hold up a goshdarned minute, I’ve had relatives who impoverished themselves to pay for retirement facilities, and you wanna let convicts in for free."
Then I thought – hey, what can it hurt. Life ain’t always fair.
It’d be better than leaving them to the tender mercies of society, unless of course they had relatives willing to help care for them.
First thing though should be to ask them if they want to leave.
Commander Fortune, I don’t know if any studies on elderly ex-cons have been done, but I do know that studies have been done on the age groups most likely to commit crimes, and they are overwhelmingly young adults. I don’t remember the specific ages, but when “middle age” is reached, the crime rates fall quite drastically. I think it probably makes sense in light of that that elderly people would be much less likely to commit crimes, even if they are ex-cons. There would be the obvious physical limitations as well, which is one of the reasons prisoners in the last stages of terminal illnessess are sometimes allowed to go home.
Johnny, I also think a “secure retirement facility” makes some sense. But wouldn’t there be some of the the same political objections to moving prisoners to a more comfortable facility as there would to releasing them?
AuntiePam,
I was talking off the top of my head (I do that a lot). When I mentioned “secure retirement facilities”, I still meant a prison. Fences, guards, the works. But since the prisoners are unlikely to escape due to their age and presumed medical frailties, I didn’t think they needed to be kept in a 5x9 cell. Let them walk on the grass a little, get some air and sun; but keep them locked up.
I know you understood what I posted, but I thought I’d use your post to allow me to refine mine. =:^)
–Woah! Hang on. The studies I have seen point to a segment of society who are career criminals. Could it be that when “middle age” is reached the crime rates fall drastically because most of those career folks are now behind bars?
Be that as it may, here is the problem as I suspect it…When a criminal kills someone or causes great hurt to a family, that criminal’s detention becomes “closure” to that family.
As long as there are members of the “wronged” family who are alive and who pass along the family legend of the evil that the criminal did to one of their own…are you following me here?..you will have a highly charged emotional situation that can not be resolved easily.
There isn’t a hard and fast policy of releasing prisoners when they reach a certain age, but age is certainly a consideration when release is being considered. A 75 year old has a much better chance of being granted parole than a 45 year old. By the same token, age is also a consideration in placing convicts in specific prisons. I used to work in a minimum security facility where most of our prisoners were either young men who had short sentences for crimes like drug use or car theft or old men who had commited murder thirty or forty years ago.
I agree with Johnny. Would they be eligable for Medicare? Or Social Security benefits, if they worked before going to the big house? Would these be available to offset their expenses? Regardless, it’s still taxpayer’s money I suppose. Just a thought.
If your head is wax, don’t walk in the sun.
-Benjamin Franklin
Maybe a visit to Greybeard Pen might be a better deterrent than Scared Straight? If youngsters saw what a man turned into after 30 - 40 - 50 years in prison, it might not appear so cool to have “done time.”
Doug, you are right that the continuing impact on the victim and family would have to be considered, if any were left. However, given the tought sentencing guidelines that have been enacted in the past few years, many, if not the majority, of “lifers” are likely to be people convicted of drug offenses, or sentenced under the “three strikes and you’re out” rules, rather than people who necessarily commited violent crimes.
While there is an argument to be made that drug and other non-violent offenses are not “victimless”, there is still no specific victim whose feelings need to be taken into account.
In teresting thread! There was a man here in Boston, arrested a few years ago for armed robbery-he was 78 years old! he had a jail record going back 60 years. Some criminals never retire!
I’m for putting MORE elderly into prison. That’s right. That’s the only way to ensure they stay off the roads.
Hell is Other People.
It kinda defeats the punishment part of prison a bit, doesn’t it?
The murderer mentioned in the OP: He may not be dangerous any more, but the person he killed in 1934 is still dead. Until the victim springs to life and pops out of the grave, I think he should do hard time.
If we treat prisons as simple warehouses to isolate dangerous people from the rest of society, then I would be all for releasing ex-killer grampas. But that takes away from the punishment/deterrent aspect of prison.
Revtim, you bring up an interesting point.
The fact is we are using prison to isolate people from the rest of society.
The old idea of the penitentiary as a reform vehicle seems to be fading (forget the root “penitent”).
One reason crime in New York City has declined in the last few years (according to the NYPD in their news releases) has been caused by the attention to identifying career criminals among the recently arrested and pursuing those prosecutions first.
The process of identify/isolate was started during the administration of Ed Koch. And it seems to be catching on in various areas of the country.
Doug, I’ve always considered “punishment” and “reform” two seperate issues. I don’t have too much confidence in the system for reform, but I think it can handle punishment by taking away freedom, or even execution.
Once a person takes a life, it is reasonable to punish that person by taking his/her freedom, forever.
I have to buy into Doug’s post. There does not seem to be a whole lot done along the lines of rehabilitation, nor is there any public attitude that “he’s paid for his crime” as there once seemed to be. Have we gotten harder of heart?
Amused by the reference to Koch’s isolate them stance. One prison operated by New York City is located outside Cape Vincent, NY (look it up; there are parts of Pennsylvania closer to NYC!).