From "Elderly and Imprisoned: 'I Don’t Count It as Living, Only Existing'" (NYT).
Research shows that most people age out of criminal conduct. Moreover, the Department of Justice asserts that the risk of elderly people reoffending after release is minimal. Yet decades of tough-on-crime sentencing and increasingly rigid release policies have left many to grow old in a system that was not designed to accommodate them. The cost is high, for both the residents and the public at large.... Efforts to reduce the aging prison population are driven not solely by compassion but also by the tremendous cost of incarcerating older people....
Posts
66 comments:
Prison is cruel. In a more civilized age many of these people would have been flogged and released, or, for the most violent crimes, executed.
I view this opinion in the light of all the lies that the NYT attempted to peddle this week.
I note no mention of the factor of deterrence. If you know you're going to spend the rest of your life in jail for a super serious offense, or as a repeated felon, you're not being real if you don't think that deters some for offending.
Rebuild and reopen old-fashioned state mental hospitals. Put the criminals who are minimally violent there. The left tried to be compassionate hundreds of years ago in creating the hospitals, then tried and failed to improve on them with neighborhood outpatient centers no one wanted or accepted, and then dumped the (violent) insane into prisons.
As typical, utopians in power made the perfect the enemy of the good.
Utter nonsense.
Even before the most recent idiotic "criminal justice reforms," offenders were virtually never prosecuted for even a fraction of the crimes they committed, no matter how serious. Unless you murder (and frequently not even then), you need a sheet of thirty or more offenses to even end up in prison at all.
At the tail end of release, early or not, there are absolutely no credible statistics about recidivism.
We live in a nolle prosec world. It is in the interest of the criminal-fetishist industry, which entirely controls both government statistics gathering and the academic field of criminology (sucking up big taxpayer-funded grants) to keep our statistics as inaccurate as possible.
A feature not a bug.
"and some of us’ll stand up
To meet you on your crossroads"
Would the cost be any less if they released them? To what?
This guy will cost just as much money out in public as he does in prison. But the govt won't be required to keep him alive if he's released and moves into a tent city.
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime..."
This problem, of aging in prison, can be alleviate to some extent by using capital punishment. But of course the NYT, as the proxy for the loony left, would never stand for that as its pages are filled with stories hailing the necessity of abortion on demand.
Career prosecutor here---IMO it would not be a bad idea to explore release of carefully-vetted inmates as they age. It might have to be to some kind of intermediate facility if they have no where else to go after decades behind bars.
Of great concern is the fact that, as much research and studying as has been done of crime, criminals, and the penal system, the system as a whole STILL doesn't always recognize the particular dangers of psychopathic predators. How many f'in times do we have to see the re-offending rates of these monsters before we recognize the signs of someone who just can never be let out of prison? It's not that hard to spot them!! For instance, if a young man jumps out of a car, drags a woman off the street, throws her into his car, drives off to a deserted location and rapes her---he is never ever going to stop. He's a danger as long as he isn't paralyzed from the neck down.
Just watch a few episodes of the TV series "I Survived" and you will see the pattern of remorseless sadistic killers/rapists who are out of jail after eight or fifteen or even twenty+ years after their earlier convictions for the same damn thing! In my perfect world, if you rape an infant, you get the death penalty or at least life in prison because that's how dangerous you are. OTOH, if you participated in an armed robbery as a nineteen year old and you or your accomplice panic and shoot the victim, you might be a candidate for release after forty years in jail.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
That kind of thinking presupposes that the only reason to keep someone incarcerated is fear of offending further. But sometimes--most times, for violent crimes--punishment is more important for civil society. If you're convicted at age, say, 18 of (first-degree) murdering anyone, but particularly a young person or child, you should forfeit your right to freedom for the rest of your life, which is what you deprived your victim of.
Hell yeah. Get them out, put them in hotels on welfare.
Works for everybody.
Federal program? Set them up downtown USA, plenty of vacant buildings available.
"Ms. Floyd writes about children’s rights and restorative justice."
The phrase "restorative justice" is a synonym for "no punishment." I'd bet all the inmates would have preferred that. Especially since the "restorative" part almost never happens.
The pendulum has swung from excessive incarceration to under-incarceration. Somewhere between those is an answer, but I'm pessimistic about finding it.
Sexual offenders rarely “age out”, especially child abusers. Violent young men become violent old men. They are just ready to use a gun where before they would have used their fists. Violent criminals don’t become more mentally or emotionally mature. They just get weaker. Don’t tell me a man in his fifties is too weak to rape a woman or shoot someone. BS. Besides that we will just in up paying for them on the outside since he has no skills to support himself. AND we will be paying for all their smaller crimes that bring the area they are in down. Drugs. Petty crime. Soliciting prostitutes and spreading disease. They are better in prison.
It’s much cheaper to let them camp outside city hall in big cities like StLouis.
Not only do they get to be free, they also become the victims.
Seems like an argument for Capital Punishment.
You say 'the risk of elderly people reoffending is LOW?
you Know what DOES reduce recidivism? EXECUTIONS. Hardly Anyone commits more crimes after hanging
"Would the cost be any less if they released them? To what?"
Got an in-law who's been a lifer for 30+ years, longer than my marriage, for sex crimes. Can't get any real info out of anyone what all he did, fancy that.
But he's pretty useless now in his 70s and I don't know what he'd do if released. HUD housing won't allow tenants with a record like that.
Hell yeah, kind of like grad School.
They learn some pro tips inside to carry them into their old age where they have nothing to lose.
More criminals on the streets.
Camilla must be a college grad.
Their offenses aren't an event. It is a lifestyle.
No one can ever be surprised at the majority opinions of the Althouse commentariat as long as one keeps this truth fixed in one's head, that in them the milk of human kindness has long curdled and turned poisonously sour.
Lost in the leftie discussion about our carceral society is the value of and satisfaction that comes from ……retribution.
Paybacks!!
- Krumhorn
Capital punishment would solve some of this problem.
Life without parole was the compromise made for banning the death penalty in capital murder cases in many jurisdictions. I have long predicted that life without parole would be the next target for abolition.
Were I the family of the murder victim whose killer got out of jail at a ripe old age of 53, he would spend approximately a week as a living free man. I have no problem with early releasing of non-violent felons at, let's say 60, providing you can demonstrate they have always been non-violent, but not violent felons- let them serve the entirety of their sentences within the normal guidelines of the parole system.
If you are a menace to society, it does not matter what age you are, you belong in prison. It doesn't have to just be violent criminals.
For years, a local man has stolen, trespassed, squatted, sued (and so on) the people of our small town. The police and the courts are very familiar with him. He holds everyone hostage by suing and putting liens on property that he has nothing to do with, making claims like "They owe me money". The courts always rule in the landowner's favor because he has no basis whatsoever. But it takes his victims years and heavy attorney fees to resolve. Meanwhile, people can't sell or use their own property.
He's in his 80s. The DA doesn't want to put him jail because of how it looks (elections!) and "it's not the right place for a senior citizen". Fine, but should the rest of the citizens have to pay in time and money until the guy passes away? And how many more people are dealing with life-long criminals who won't be jailed due to their age?
We’re quickly approaching the day when prison will be reserved exclusively for the left’s political opponents. It will be considered inhumane for everyone else.
Steven at 654. Good point. I think 50 plus years in prison is more "cruel and inhumane" than if the person had been executed decades earlier. Put them out of their misery, like we do with pets.
It's called Justice. It doesn't matter if the person isn't likely to reoffend.
Okay, maybe the armed robber at 19 can get out with age. I agree with everything RigelDog said, and I'm baffled that the system isn't better at differentiating the two. Seems like unprovoked violence wouldn't be too hard to spot.
There is no recidivism if you are incarcerated or executed. Sounds like a great solution.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
The only time these fuckers consider cost control : here and when President Trump flies anywhere.
Efforts to reduce the aging prison population are driven not solely by compassion but also by the tremendous cost of incarcerating older people....
As if compassion for anyone drives government decision-making about prisons. I am willing to stipulate that some people (and not just elderly 53-year-olds) are in prison who don't "need" to be, other than for purposes of retribution and deterrence (which used to be considered perfectly good purposes but are now out of fashion in NYT-reading circles).* But the main driver of efforts to reduce prison population of "elderly" inmates is the same as that for reducing prison populations in general, releasing more pretrial detainees, closing prisons, disemploying correction officers, and, for that matter, cutting police budgets. Politicians can think of more important things to do with all those "tremendous" tax dollars than keeping you safe on your streets.
*Google "Jean Harris"
"Efforts to reduce the aging prison population are driven not solely by compassion but also by the tremendous cost of incarcerating older people...."
Gotta open up some space for the next round of "insurrectionists."
Virtually all efforts by politicians to reduce prison populations are driven by costs. They have little compassion for inmates or crime victims.
It is certainly true that statistically the propensity to commit crime can be shown to decrease as offenders age. That is not necessarily true of prison inmates who tend to be violent or repetitive offenders.
Lefty do-gooders aren't concerned with those particulars. They just want to empty the prisons whatever the consequences. It was ever so.
https://www.nydailynews.com/2022/03/10/brooklyn-serial-killer-83-charged-with-murder-after-cops-find-womans-severed-head-in-apartment/
This is the sort of attitude that increases support for the death penalty.
"Research shows that most people age out of criminal conduct. Moreover, the Department of Justice asserts that the risk of elderly people reoffending after release is minimal...."
Isn't that precious? I can only point out that in some cases, their victims are not given the opportunity to 'age out' of their victimhood, being dead. And in still others, the victims of violent crime can be scarred for a considerable time by their ordeals, and continue their lives within a legacy of physical and/or psychological trauma.
As for the folks that downplay the 'deterrent' arguments, the proper way to consider this dynamic is that the criminal, behind bars, is permanently deterred from committing more crimes. Deterrents work. If other proto-criminals consider these examples of a 'life sentence of hard time' for hard crimes as something to be avoided, than this additional deterrent is just the dividend being paid for the stock that is held by society. The 'stock' is also known as Public Safety. It's a Long Term Buy & Hold type of stock.
Still viable? The consideration is motivated by neither compassion nor cost, where the latter is fungible in a welfare state with progressive prices.
"I note no mention of the factor of deterrence. If you know you're going to spend the rest of your life in jail for a super serious offense, or as a repeated felon, you're not being real if you don't think that deters some for offending."
I'm not sure that's true. One of the reasons that felons are felons is that they don't think rationally.
You all are missing the point of this. It's not about parole or capital punishment. It's about being old and expensive. Unspoken but implied is the question of euthanasia. First they came for the lifers ...
" Yet decades of tough-on-crime sentencing and increasingly rigid release policies have left many to grow old in a system that was not designed to accommodate them. The cost is high, for both the residents and the public at large"
The cost is high? How so? The cost of their healthcare in prison? Because you can bet dollars to donuts (which sadly these days is even money) that were they released, the government would still be picking up the tab for their healthcare. Shit, they're picking up mine and my only crime was turning 65.
"Robert Cook said...
No one can ever be surprised at the majority opinions of the Althouse commentariat as long as one keeps this truth fixed in one's head, that in them the milk of human kindness has long curdled and turned poisonously sour."
A conservative is a Leftist who's been the victim of a home invasion.
"LH in Montana said...
If you are a menace to society, it does not matter what age you are, you belong in prison."
Leave Joe Biden out of this.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
No one can ever be surprised at the majority opinions of the Althouse commentariat as long as one keeps this truth fixed in one's head, that in them the milk of human kindness has long curdled and turned poisonously sour.
"The milk of human kindness" in Cook's mind is limited to the deserving, like Hamas and ANTIFA. Normal humans are the enemy to Cook and his ilk.
Virtually all efforts by politicians to reduce prison populations are driven by costs.
No mention of virtue signalling, excuse to decry the hate in those-other-guys for poltical benefit? (Ask Cookie. He's all into it.)
Cost is likely a major factor, but I'd disagree with "vrtually all".
Moreover, the Department of Justice asserts that the risk of elderly people reoffending after release is minimal.
Not minimal to the person run down by an elderly neighbor with his car because of a disagreement.
"...most people age out of criminal conduct."
If it saves one child's life then it is worth the price for them to all stay in jail.
Seriously, RigalDog makes a lot of sense.
Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?
Kate said...
Unspoken but implied is the question of euthanasia. First they came for the lifers ...
Agree. Look at Canada. They have the lowest bar I can think of.
Incarceration is deterrence from criminal behavior in public, for at least the one in prison.
Cook fails to acknowledge that in his tendentious, unsupported criticism of the local commentariat.
“The Justice department asserts” it’s enough for me to say bullshit.
Hey Robert Cook, I'm a bit low on the milk of human kindness where criminals are concerned. Unlike most of you, I spent many years of my younger life actively involved in the world of crime, and not as a spectator. Also not a thief or a violent person, but I knew many of those types well. Most people in prison really and truly belong there. They may slow down a bit with age, but very few really improve. Tina Trent knows what she's talking about on this subject.
"incarceration accelerates aging...."
I'll say. My gangbangin' nephew stayed with me in SF for the last few years of high school. I got him up to a 'B' student. Then he immediately went back to South Central LA and (with one of Ike Turner's nephews) held up a check cashing place. They bungled the robbery, and my boy got 12 years. Right out of high school. That's over a decade of lifting weights on bread and water.
He dropped dead at 40.
There is a tremendous cost in taking care of all older people (or younger ones) if they are no longer able to live on their own and care for themselves, which will be all of us at some point through aging, illness, and disability.
Planned Parent/hood was demonstrated to be a viable solution in several Democratic districts...
I understand the people here saying that incarceration does -- or doesn't! -- work well past a certain age. What I don't understand is why it should be so much more expensive to incarcerate old men (and women, but we're pretty much talking men here, amirite?) than young ones. Agreed that older men outside of prison can be as dangerous as younger men, but inside? I suppose that the point, if point there is, is that with the older population someone needs to keep track of their meds and their Medicare. For those of us outside prison, the person doing that would be . . . us. Please don't tell me that managing government benefits is too damn difficult for government employees.
LH in Montana, and also Yancey: this is exactly the scenario that vigilante Justice was created for. At least here in the United States, we are not vassals of the government, for our elites to toy with as they see fit. If the government fails in its duties, we are entitled - - as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it -- to do something about it.
There is a well known story about a small town, I think in Missouri, who had a long-term disturber of the peace just like the guy in LH's story, except I think he included violence and threats violence in the mix. One day, he was shot dead in the middle of town, and nobody saw who did it.
"Please don't tell me that managing government benefits is too damn difficult for government employees."
"The article focuses on a woman — Chrystal Audet, 49 — who was living in her Ford Fusion with her 26-year old daughter and her dog. What's most shocking is that Audet is a social worker, employed by the state, who earns over $72,000 a year."
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-lake-washington-united-methodist.html
Just sayin'.
George Floyd might still be alive today if he'd been kept in prison for his earlier crimes.
"That's over a decade of lifting weights on bread and water.
He dropped dead at 40."
--
Right..
Walter,
If that's sarcasm, you're obviously too literal to be talked to sometimes.
I am puzzled. Don't most states have something called the parole system? Wasn't Charles Manson up recently for possible release? Isn't that how these issues are supposed to be dealt with?
'The cost is high'.
Only if one closes his mind to massive total costs borne by citizens by failing to put thugs behind bars. But they're just ordinary citizens, useful for taxing maybe, but perfectly able to bear up under beatings, rapes, looting and other ingenious barbarism.
Thugs behind bars, please.
You don't get really long sentences without murdering someone. Sorry, but it's true. The days of "three strikes" are long gone. These articles always gloss over what the prisoner actually did, and to whom.
I view incarceration as a way to protect society from criminals. I don't have much belief in the rehabilitational, punitive, or deterrent properties of prison. So, I'm open to the idea of releasing older prisoners if they are less of a threat.
However, do you want to release people who have murdered, maybe more than once, and often murdered women or children?
Do you?
Post a Comment