Should the laws/punishment of prisoners be re-examined, including parole and probation...?

Question

Aging Inmates Clogging Nation's Prisons
AP
Posted: 2007-09-29 14:33:24
HARDWICK, Ga. (AP) - Razor wire topping the fences seems almost a joke at the Men's State Prison, where many inmates are slumped in wheelchairs, or leaning on walkers or canes.

It's becoming an increasingly common sight: geriatric inmates spending their waning days behind bars. The soaring number of aging inmates is now outpacing the prison growth as a whole.

Tough sentencing laws passed in the crime-busting 1980s and 1990s are largely to blame. It's all fueling an explosion in inmate health costs for cash-strapped states.

"It keeps going up and up," said Alan Adams, director of Health Services for the Georgia Department of Corrections. "We've got some old guys who are too sick to get out of bed. And some of them, they're going to die inside. The courts say we have to provide care and we do. But that costs money."

Justice Department statistics show that the number of inmates in federal and state prisons age 55 and older shot up 33 percent from 2000 to 2005, the most recent year for which the data was available. That's faster than the 9 percent growth overall.

The trend is particularly pronounced in the South, which has some of the nation's toughest sentencing laws. In 16 Southern states, the growth rate has escalated by an average of 145 percent since 1997, according to the Southern Legislative Conference.

Rising prison health care costs - particularly for elderly inmates - helped fuel a 10 percent jump in state prison spending from fiscal year 2005 to 2006, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That growth in spending is projected to continue, the group said.

The graying of the nation's prisons mirrors the population as whole. But many inmates arrive in prison after years of unhealthy living, such as drug use and risky sex. The stress of life behind bars can often make them even sicker.

And once they enter prison walls, they aren't eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, where the costs are shared between the state and federal government, meaning a state shoulders the burden of inmate health care on its own.

Estimates place the annual cost of housing an inmate at $18,000 to $31,000 a year. There is no firm separate number for housing an elderly inmate, but there is widespread agreement that it's significantly higher than for a younger one.

In addition to medical costs there are other, less obvious expenses. For instance, elderly inmates can't climb to the top bunk so they sometimes need to be housed in separate units that require more space.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that inmates have a constitutional right to health care. But what that means can depend on where an inmate is locked up.

Answer 1

There should be a lot of overhaul in the system.

Execution for violent crimes should be increased drastically.

Nonviolent crimes should be punished by banishment to Utah.

Answer 2

I read that article, too. I don't get it. Just what did the lawmakers think was going to happen when they sent people to prison for life without parole? When a 30 year old guy gets sentenced to 25-life, what did they think was going to happen?
To your question, should the current laws be re-evaluated? Why? Because there are too many older inmates? What was the point of long term incarceration in the first place? This situation isn't new. Every couple years the people involved in the prison system come up with some new way to get more money. Prisons have been overcrowded for decades. People are serving lengthy terms for ridiculous reasons. Brutal criminals get released early and then commit another horrendous crime.
It's all politics and money. This is just a new angle on a very old problem.

Answer 3

The answer is yes - but.

The reason that the prisons are full of aging inmates has very little to do with the shocking story of the 80 year old child molester. The VAST majority of those who are in for life, are there because of the three strike rule. This while intended to take the worst of the worst off the streets, has instead been used to give life sentences to people who have not even been convicted of a violent crime. There are hundreds who have three convictions for possession of grass. One man is serving a life sentence for bouncing a check. It was his third conviction for bouncing a check, spread over 20 year. But the law said third felony, is a third felony.

We need to re-evaluate the NON Violent offenders, and get them away from the violent one, before the get a degree in violence inside the prison.

The violent ones, either accept that you will pay to keep them locked up forever, or bring back the hangman and solve the problem that way.

Answer 4

Forget this panic over "cruel and unusual punishment" and get the cat back in on the act when it comes to minor crime that didn't phsyically harm anyone.

A dozen or so strokes across the back with a cat / strap could be given as an OPTION if you like - then no-one is forced into anything - but the petty criminals who would rather have a sore back for a few hours than clog up the prison system for a few months could get back to leading their life.

Pros: Cheap, criminal has CHOICE - so no whinging from nannies, proven to be EXTREMELY effective when this HAS been tried in the US in the recent past ( http://www.okplus.com/fedup/charged.htm ), criminal can return home same day so need not lose job, need not lose home, no disruption to familt.

Cons: If the criminal has a CHOICE (convention or flogging) I am not sure I can see a downside.

The likes of US/UK government are waaaay to PC and up their fundemental orifices to ever do something practical, simple, economical and effective though.

They will just talk about their next "being tough on crime and the cause of crime". Each party is going to be the one that makes a huge difference (of course they never managed it when they were last in power but we are not supposed to let something as silly as facts spoil the rhetoric)

Yes, something needs to be done, yes it WOULD have a HUGE effect on both the prison poulation AND the cost of processing criminals. It would also give more effective closure to many victims AND motivate criminals to straighten their lives out far more than sending them into "Crime school" at the tax payers expense.

Before anyone gives me thumbs down for being "barbaric" or some other such twaddle, may I point out:-

1. I propose this is a choice - an OPTION other than prison
2. Many people are raped in prison - THAT is barbaric
3. Imprisoned people often lose family / job / homes
4. This CHOICE allows them to be punished AND get on with their lives.

Mark

Answer 5

People sent to jail for life aren't going because they were caught littering.

Maybe we need to show more of this wretched old inmates living with substandard health care. Might be some kind of deterrent.

The real solution may be to bring back hard labor and reduce the standard of housing and care. That way they won't live as long.

Answer 6

Re-examined to what purpose? To release them because they are elderly and/or infirm? Let me tell you a true story, then you decide. In Texas, I worked for the Department of Criminal Justice as a nurse. One of the inmates on the unit where I worked was a convicted child molester and murderer. He was quite old at the time...late eighties..and a wheelchair bound amputee (leg had been removed courtesy of other convicts who disliked murderers of children, so he couldn't "run after" children anymore). The Board of Pardons and Paroles decided to parole him to a nursing home because he had served many years of a life sentence. So they sent him to the nursing home; where he was promptly caught fondling the 4 yr old great granddaughter of his roommate.

Just because a dog is old doesn't mean he isn't as vicious as he ever was.

Answer 7

Iraq, not Utah