Aging Inmates Raising Prison Costs

Another article on the rising costs of providing geriatric inmate care. Any insurance salesman could tell you that older persons generally have greater healthcare costs than younger persons - but when it comes to inmates, the taxpayers are footing the bill for the person's genetic disorders or poor health choices. The question is, given the high costs of providing the constitutionally-required care, should elderly inmates be released?

Prisons nationwide have dealt with the issue by building special geriatric care facilities to separate the elderly and vulnerable and provide better around-the-clock care. But these units take additional staff and require additional funds.

From a compassionate viewpoint, elderly inmates should be released so that they can die peacefully outside of a cage. From a more cynical viewpoint, releasing the elderly kicks the cost of the healthcare back to the local governments that then have to care for these persons, whether in a shelter or a state-run nursing home.

For me, I support release of the elderly, but there's always going to be a question of what age is the dividing line. According to the article, a Department of Justice representative attacked a House bill that would have set the age of release at 45, saying that it went against longstanding US criminal justice policies and truth-in-sentencing laws. Given that standpoint, mandatory release at any age would be against the sentencing guidelines. I don't personally agree with the DOJ person (b/c I think blindly following sentencing guidelines is a crock), but I do think that 45 is way too young.

The question comes down to whether simple maturity or physical ability affects recidivism. A man of 45 is likely more mature than a man of 25 and is therefore less likely to commit a crime - and in fact statistics show that most persons convicted of a crime are within a younger age span. Given that, 45 should be a perfectly acceptable age for mandatory release and would certainly do wonders for the current prison population.

However, to many in the community, the specter of physical violence is going to be what first pops into the mind when considering early release. I feel pretty confident that a 13 year old girl could fight off a man of 75. I'm less confident that she could fight off a man of 45, which is practically the prime of life. For that reason, I would never set the age at 45. Maybe that's naive or flat-out stupid since physical assaults compose only a very small percentage of actual crimes and therefore the physical ability of the inmate makes no difference to the criminal ability. But I don't think I'm alone in making that leap of logic.

I remain unsure about those who would simply be kicked to the community's curb, but for those inmates over 70 years of age who can produce a viable plan for economic support and living situation, I see no reason to keep them in prison. Impose parole or other community corrections and keep the stick of potential prison time over their heads if they reoffend, but what is the point of keeping them in prison otherwise?

My one sticking point would be for the convict who commits, say, a murder at age 69.5 or older. The article questions whether mandatory release would "show a lack of respect for dead victims or heinous crimes" and I think that's valid. I don't think that age itself should be a get-out-of-jail free card (although the vision of roving bands of geriatric outlaws who commit crimes with impunity is rather ridiculous). I think there would have to be some sort of minimum time based on the crime - like 25% of the sentence - to show that society has not forgotten the victim.

Regardless, something does need to be done about the incarceration of elderly inmates - for the sake of tax dollars if nothing else, but I would also add for the sake of humanity in our criminal justice system.