E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tim Gruber / Tim Gruber for the ACLU
States would save on average more than $66,000 per year by releasing each elderly prisoner who no longer poses a threat, the ACLU says.
States could save billions of dollars a year without compromising public safety if they released low-risk prisoners who are age 50 and older, the ACLU says.
A report released Wednesday by the organization finds that states spend more than $16 billion of taxpayer money annually locking up hundreds of thousands of “elderly” prisoners who are unlikely to re-offend.
“Extremely disproportionate sentencing policies, fueled by the ‘tough on crime’ and ‘war on drugs’ movements, have turned our prisons into nursing homes, and taxpayers are footing the bill,” Inimai Chettiar, ACLU advocacy and policy counsel and one of the report’s lead authors, said in a news release.
“Lawmakers need to implement reforms that lead to the release of those elderly prisoners who no longer pose a safety threat sufficient to justify their continued incarceration and reform our sentencing policies to prevent this epidemic at the outset.”
The report, “At America’s Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly,” says states would save an average of more than $66,000 per year for each older, low-risk prisoner released – even after factoring in post-release costs such as housing and health care.
“While some of these prisoners may turn to the government for their health care or other needs, government expenditures on released aging prisoners will be far cheaper than the costs of incarcerating them,” the report says.
According to the ACLU, 50 is the criminological consensus of when a prisoner becomes "elderly" because people age physiologically faster behind bars. There are roughly 246,600 criminals who meet that definition who are incercerated in the U.S.
“We as a country are very trigger-happy in terms of throwing people into prison for very, very long sentences without thinking why,” Chettiar told mnsbc.com. “We need to introduce proportionality into sentencing here. Is the punishment fitting the crime?”
The report says there is “overwhelming evidence” that prisoners 50 and older are far less likely to return to prison for new crimes than their younger cohorts.
The ACLU report recommends that states grant elderly prisoners access to a parole hearing, during which a parole board or similar body can evaluate whether the prisoner can be safely released.
Last year, Louisiana passed a bill that allows prisoners to go before a parole board upon turning 60, provided they meet certain criteria, including that they were not convicted of violent or sex-related crimes. Chettiar described that legislation as “an excellent first step.”
Watch US News crime videos on msnbc.com
James Alan Fox, a criminology professor at Northeastern University, said the idea of early release for elderly prisoners isn’t new. “An argument certainly can be made that most offenders over age 50 no longer pose risk given their stage in life,” he said.
But Fox said age should be just one consideration in determining eligibility for release. The more important indicators are the type of crime committed and how long the inmate has been behind bars, he said.
”There are scenarios that are so heinous in nature that they forfeit their right to live free regardless of their life cycle,” Fox said.
As an example, he cited the case of “Son of Sam” serial killer David Berkowitz, now 59, who remains behind bars for killing six people and wounding several others in a series of shootings that terrorized New York City in the 1970s. It's unlikely society would look favorably on his early release, Fox said.
Professor William Alex Pridemore of the Department of Criminal Justice at Indiana University said in an email interview that releasing inmates may not be a popular action to take. However, he said, “the public must understand ... that those selected for release would not only be older, and thus much less likely to commit further serious crime, but also would possess lower risk profiles based on their behavior while incarcerated."
He added: "The public is also beginning to understand, especially in these austere times, that prison is an extremely expensive option. It costs tens of thousands of dollars per year to house the average inmate, and these older inmates are not average. Elderly inmates are more likely to have health problems, which increases substantially the economic burden on taxpayers. More generally, rates of infectious disease like TB and hepatitis are very high in prisons, and very expensive to treat."
A victims’ advocacy group said any proposal for early-release program must take into account those who have been hurt by crime.
“The primary concerns surrounding any form of early or premature release of convicted criminals involve decisions made without any consideration or consultation of victims,” Will Marling, executive director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, said in a statement to msnbc.com.
“Such survivors of seemingly ‘lesser’ crimes commonly suffer the deepest losses because of crime. We owe it to victims to recognize how that release impacts them.”
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Hey, that's a pretty good idea. What's grampa gonna do, run me down with his Rascal?
Although, now these old geezers will be our problem and we'll probably end up having to feed and house them w/tax dollars anyway.
The article said it would save "billions" and that age would be only one factor (so presumably people like David Berkowitz wouldn't be released).
Hmm. I think this is a good idea.
I also LOVE corndogs!
Yeah, right. They release the prisoners so that they can quit paying out of the "penal system" pocket and start paying out of the "welfare" and "medicaid" pockets. Quite a bit of savings there, eh me bucko?
Actually, the article says that the calculations account for the fact that these people will likely receive public assistance. It is still cheaper for them to be out of prison.
This is a great idea!! Let Charles Manson out FIRST..........
The ACLU is now attempting to justify it's actions using finance? This is the same organization that is suing Americans for enforcing border laws, despite the obvious burden on schools, healthcare, etc... and the loss of jobs, not to mention the cost of defending against the lawsuits themselves.
I'm sure the goal here is the same; votes. Get the old, broke, jobless, people out of prison and then promise them "freebies" for their votes.
1. How do you decide who is no longer a threat? And if you adopt this policy, don't you think they will figure out some way to game it?
2. If you let them out, we are going to end up paying anyway. Emergency room, welfare, medicare/medicaid, etc....Their calculations are based on the assumption of the same level of treatment. Their medical costs will be much higher on the outside, especially with Obama care and doctors who order up everything just to cover their azz.
3. They were sent there for punishment, not to enjoy their golden years.
4. Or you could just keep them in the general prison population and really save money.
pjam09, again with you stupid votes theories. Most convicts which are felons can't vote. That is one of the rights they lose. Read up some.
Two ways for states to save money:
1. Execute the prisoners so they don't get old.
2. Do away with the ACLU and it's annoying lawsuits.
Oh yeah. Kick them out to live/die on the streets.
As "convicted felons" they will not be able to get public housing or any kind of work and in some states may not even qualify for food assistance. These old people are completely institutionalized and will quickly die on some street corner. To speed up the process let's make sure we kick them out in the middle of winter. Body decomposition won't be so bad either in the freezing cold.
Heck, for once I have to agree....however, the released inmates should be REQUIRED to move to San Francisco as part of their release "agreement".
Maybe it would be cheaper to keep them in a Medicaid nursing home vs. a prison nursing home.
But the time they remain in care would probably be shorter in the prison, since that health care and nutrition is even worse than the medicaid warehouse. Plus there is a slightly higher probability that they will suffer a severe beating in prison, which could also shorten the required period of care.
Some savings.
With no job skills, no source of income, who do you think will foot the bill for their lives and health care?
That's right.
We will.
The taxpayers will cover them no matter what. We'll get stuck with the tab no matter what.
Great system we have here.
My best guess on this is this.
Most of those released will commit another crime just so they can go back home to their cell . Why ??? Because that is the only life style they know and are comfortable in.
What you are pretty young to remember under Reagan - asylums were closed and inmates where thrown unto the streets
I worked in New York City and saw these people wandering about
Now - what the prisons are saying it would be cheaper to house them elsewhere - and I agree - many of these men could live in cheaper homes - somewhat like dorms - and many of these men could have skills that could benefit society
If you look at why they were initially incarcenated - most are crimes that would never happen again - crimes of passion - wives - three times your out - ridiculous - look at these people individually and I'm sure you would probably recognize many injustices
And maybe bob is right - but why not give it a try - let's look at the percentages
Part of me says this is a good idea. Another part thinks Albert Fish.
Now I get it..."Life in Prison" really means we will keep you locked up UNTIL you get old and too expensive and then we will dump you into the Medicaid system so we can get Federal assistance
Apparently some of you didn't read the ENTIRE article. The net savings figures they quoted were AFTER they took into account post release housing and healthcare. The numbers are NET.
Since when did 50 become elderly? Crap, these people would just end up in jail again
If you said 80 I might buy it but 50 is hardly geezer age
I doubt it. Whether they're institutionalized in a nursing home (on the outside) or in a prison, it's still going to be expensive. That's the price we all pay.
I'm sure Madonna just loved finding out she was elderly...
So does this mean they will just let Jerry Sandusky go after he is convicted?
Barbara: I agree. I thought about Reagan closing all the mental health facilities and all the homeless people who are too sick to get the help they need (medication, food, shelter). I doubt very many of the elderly who have been incarcerated most of their lives will be able to function & there will be a ton more homeless people........If they really want to save money they could prioritize the people who need to be locked up forever (Manson Family) as opposed to people who are locked up due to outmoded or lesser crimes.......
Here's a partial list of some of the ACLU's "accomplishments". If one wants to know the source of this country's decline is, look no further than this organization. Contrary to what many believe, this is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it is destruction of this country's ideals and value system through legal process. I suspect you wouldn't find many WWII Veterans (or Veterans in general) who would say these "accomplishments" are what they fought and risked their lives for.
Burning of the American Flag
Prohibition of displaying the 10 Commandments on Government land
Multiple occasions of the ACLU requiring all religious symbols and references be removed from Courthouses.
Legal support of Phillip Greaves, the author of “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct.”
Panhandlers have 1st Ammendment rights to Panhandle
Prohibition of prayer in schools or at school events
Requirement schools must teach Darwinism
Roe V Wade
Defense of Santeria religion.
Police can no longer prosecute for profane language.
Ruling that America is not a Christian Nation.
A Christian cross meant to honor fallen military heroes is unconstitutional because it “projects a government endorsement of Christianity.”
Continued support of Child Molesters by legally challenging the “Child Online Protection Act” designed to protect children from online predators.
Same Sex Marriage
Partial Birth Abortions
Attempt to legalize the sale and distribution of Child Pornography
Continued support of the freedom of expression through the arts, regardless of the images depicted or subject matter.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Support of Terrorists suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Continued challenge of the display of Nativity Scenes during Christmas.
Continued efforts to prohibit prayer in the Military
Legal support of NAMBLA
Legal Support of Sharia Law in the United States
First off I do not consider 50 to be elderly, I might buy 80, but certainly not 50. A lot of serious crimes are still committed by people who are over 50. In addition, do they propose that anyone over the age they establish who is found guilty of a non-violent crime is just given a pass and sent on their way. I also do not buy their math. By the time you get done with Medicaid, welfare payments, food stamps, etc. there will be minimal savings. Plus, not to be cold or crass, it is well established the life expectancy in prison is shorter than on the outside, so they will probably live longer on the outside an end up costing more because I highly doubt that the ACLU took this factor into consideration when they did their comparison. Also, who gets to determine that they are no longer a threat, or are they proposing automatic release at a given age, which would make life sentences meaningless. This is just typical garbage from the liberal ACLU that anyone with a little common sense and the ability to do basic math will see right through.
With the exception of the violent and sex predators, this massive lock up of senior citizens does not make any sense. The U.S.'s incarceration rate does not correlate with a diminished level of crime. We need to look for other forms of rehabilitation to reform as many of these people as we possibly can. To keep low-level elderly offenders behind bars only costs society more. There has to be a better way.
Frank 305816:
Good list, but you forgot the point of ACLU defending a Neo Nazi Group as well.... Remember the Skokie incident????
Quite a bunch, huh? Hundreds of people in the town I live in are getting redlined worse than Jim Crow and the ACLU is off playing Kyle Broflovski's mother Sheila, attacking anyone who says a prayer as a football game. With Liberals like that, who needs Fascists!
if they do it i hope they at least raise the age to 60. my dad is almost 60 and in good enough health to be a criminal threat if he had the desire to be one so a 50 year old felon could still be a threat.
frank, i only see a few things on that list that i don't like.
The so-called billions the ACLU claims the states will is but an illusion as the costs will simply be transferred elsewhere. Society will be better served by keeping these inmates exactly where they are.
I think the translation that MOST people are missing is that warehousing these people in prison is frickin expensive - $66K a year, per inmate?
so how else can we warehouse them at a significantly cheaper rate?
I think the solution are RESERVATIONS - like we stuck native americans on.
except, we completely fence them in - mote them out, and put towers surrounding the large swath of property we drop them on. put in the most basic and crappy housing possible, akin to slum housing (which is what we expect they'd only be able to find if they were released from prison) and ship in food that is the most basic of food - and let them cook it themselves.
it's likely people would kill each other in this scenario without guards present.
but i contend if they would do that there (or in prison without guards) they'll do it in regular society.
better they kill each other, than any of us.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL? it's time we start to rethink this really means.
I think it's CRUEL AND UNUSUAL that it costs more to warehouse prisoners than the average american makes. I think it's CRUEL AND UNUSUAL that prisoners have better health care than many working americans, and more food to eat than america's poor who have not committed crimes like these people have.
I think it's CRUEL AND UNUSUAL that a prisoner has access to things like tv, internet, money from outside of prison, and a bazillion other things that their family can give them to have while in prison. I think it's CRUEL AND UNUSUAL that we give them comforts like access to gym equipment that average americans have to PAY FOR TO USE at gyms.
Sure, we could just dump them in the streets and pretend like problem is solved - but it wont be, and only a horribly uncreative person would consider this the best option. Too many bleeding hearts want to believe that 90% of the prison is full of innocent people who just made "mistakes" BULLSH!T!
we need to start making our prisons something to fear, something you dont ever want to end up in ever again - a TRUE LOSS OF FREEDOM. I dont want to beat, abuse, or harm prisoners. I dont want to starve them or psychologically mess with them. I just want them LOCKED UP and all freedom loss. You sit in a cell, you read a book, you piss and poop, take a shower, and eat 3 meals a day of food that is the most bland and crappy food you've ever eaten - but nutritionally enough to keep you alive. THAT IS ALL PRISON SHOULD EVER BE. NO HEALTHCARE.
people should die in prison because of sickness and disease, just as people die in the general public because they lack healthcare. a prisoner should NEVER have access to something free people who've committed no crimes do not have access too - for free.
PERIOD.
*edited to add - i think these reservations should be for all people who are in prison for life, without parole, who've committed violent crimes - murder, rape, child molestation, ect
these should not be used for people who've been convicted of non-violent crimes, but are still in prison for life...such as drug running, fraud, financial crimes - unless it's proven that their activity indirectly resulted in someones death (such as a crime boss leader ordering his people to kill someone).
Where the line gets drawn exactly might not be clear yet, but I think there's at least a CERTAIN threshold that could be met, and I dont think we need to wait for people to reach 50 to put them in these reservations.
Prisons then should become true places of reform - since the expecation would be that someday these people WOULD be released into the general population.
This is a controversial proposal to say the least. We have to balance our desire to save money with our desire to punish those guilty of committing evil acts.
On a side note I find it very interesting that we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment, and yet the populus of our nation wants to visit cruel and unusual punishments on criminals. We want them to suffer, but we don't want to be cruel and unusual about it. How do we get around that paradox? Let the criminals punish each other. Never mind that it increases the rate of recidivism in our country.
We have to empoly more wisdom and long term thinking in the punishment of criminality. Our current system is just a bandaid solution propogated by a thirst for vengance coupled with short term thinking, and tempered inefficiently by the desire to be humane. This leads to delimas such as the one discussed in the article. Vengance coupled with short term thinking is expensive. It's even more expensive when the people who run the system have to do mental gymnastics around being humane while making criminals suffer.
If our penal system were driven by cold logic coupled with a penchant for the mental reprogramming of inmates (as opposed to bloodthirsty vengance struggling against the desire to be humane) then it would be more efficient, cost effective, reduce the rate of recidivism, and increase public harmony and welfare (notice the context in which I used the word welfare; it does not apply to 'the welfare system').
Easy Solution ! Farm them all out to Mexico! Guards there only make about a Dollar an Hour and the food sucks ! Problem Solved.
Decriminalize marijuana use and the prisons would empty out tomorrow.
Problem solved.
How to save money, get rid of the state of the art gyms, free college tuition for as high up the education scale as they want, top of the line cable tv, and remember a 90 yr old can still pull a trigger.
Frank & T.R.,
Unpopular speech is still a protected right even though you may not like it. Its still protected under the First Amendment.
The ACLU had nothing to do with America not being a Christian nation. It never was. Don't believe me, read a lot of the Founding Fathers and try reading the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11.
The ACLU didn't do crap about upholding Sharia Law, what they did was defend Muslims who some radicals thought may or may not use Sharia Law.
The First Amendment gives freedom of religion to ALL people of ALL religions. If you don't like that, then perhaps spending some time in a country that is an actual theocracy of a religion that you don't belong to may open your eyes a bit.
And apparently, Frank, here doesn't want scientific theories to be taught in school.
Oh and just so you all know.... the ACLU has defended Christians on quite a few occasions like when Roswell was sued because it violated a preacher's rights to free speech; defended a student who gave an anti-abortion speech; other students who preached in a public park and many other times. The ACLU is not the enemy here.
FRANK-305806
Thank you for reminding me of why i am a "CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU"
Because freedom is not freedom if it is only the freedoms you agree with.
And of course you lied about many of your line items...
The ACLU does not defend what many of these groups want, only their right to advocate for it. It is called FREE SPEECH.
For instance they do not help NAMBLA (With less than 100 members worldwide A blown out of proportion right wing whipping boy if there ever was one) achieve the changes they seek in age of consent laws, they do not help them legalize child pornography, they do not assist Namba in any way supporting Child Molestation. They only support their right to speak and publish to advocate for those changes.
They do not fight the right of you to display a Nativity scene on your property, only when you want to use public property to do so.
This is not a Christian Nation, this is a secular nation with a separation between Church and State...or would you prefer a Christian Version of Islamic law here? As a Christian I don't want anyones version of religion in our government, certainly not your hate filled one.
They did not support The NAZIs in Skokies policies or manifesto, only there right to march and speak. Of course you did not mention this one (Someone else did) but I think you left it out because you are a Fascist.
You seem to be an ENEMY of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Since you are against the basic freedoms contained within it. Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and the Equal Protection Clause.
I will defend the right of these abhorrent groups to speak, then show up to protest tim when they do. That is real freedom.
franklytrue................you are my hero. Isn't it amazing that the right cannot get their point across without lying? You'd think if they were so right, they wouldn't need to lie. But they DO need to lie so.....................gosh, do you think the "right" is not really right?
If we are incarcerating these people 'for life', then instead of keeping them in jail and wasting so much money on their care, why aren't they subject to being executed? It would be so much cheaper and we could reduce the number of prisons required to house them. Of course, California and other states would have to reinstate the death penalty, but that isn't so bad. I think everyone would agree that Charles Manson should be the first person executed under the guise of saving money.
Food for thought...
The nation that claims to have the most freedoms in the world, also has the highest per capita rate of incarceration.
Figure that one out.
{The info is readily available, so go look it up for yourself.}
1. The parole board
2. I'm not sure how u made that leap in assumption. Logic would assume tax payer calculations are based on living outside the prison vs what they cost us now.
3. Not sure how much enjoyment they'd be getting in their "golden yrs" likely being poor and on gov assistance. It's not a picnic.
4. No comment...as i can't debate that illogic no more than what the article has mentioned.
Anything the ACLU is in favor of I'm against.
New york prisons are full of Blacks and Latinos for a small amount of Marijauna and other drugs. People go to jail for having a joint on them.
take it out of republicans pockets who choose to lock up so many ppl. im so tired of them not paying taxes yet decide where 95% of our money goes. if they want america a police state and we have 25% of the worlds prison population, then start taking it out republicans pockets, not the taxpayers. republicans are worse then welfare ppl. they dicatate america. pay absoultley nothing. they make laws agaisnt the 99% with the 99% money. im tired of it.
You do realize that this idea was thought up by young intelligent minds with no experience. Although, I've heard somthing very much like this before, but nothing came of it. This could be part of the reason why they want people to wait til 70 to retire. Sounds like Ying Yang, Give here take there, another plot to hope we die before we can collect.
Floyd is apparently against free speech then.
Exactly. You don't get a multi-decade prison sentence for jay walking. If you were a viscious criminal in your prime getting old does not turn you into a sweet old grandpa it just makes you old and viscious.
And isn't that why they have parole hearings?
No, no, no, NO! - This is wrong on so many levels, and not for ones that first come to mind for most people.
My father was a prison guard up until the time he was able to retire (for about 10 yrs.) Prior to that he was an electrician. Kinda on the elder side himself, he was also around a number of elderly prisoners whom he got along with fairly well. This is what my dad had said about these prisoners in their later 60's, 70's & on up:
Most of those elderly guys don't want to get out. 20 or so years ago sure, but not now. How would they survive? Where are they going to go and what are they going to do? If they have been in prison for a very long time and If they have already passed their best years and are elderly, the thought of being turned loose could be a little scary. This is also a form of what's known as being "institutionalized."
Some might figure out the welfare system but most would probably wind up homeless, pushing shopping carts and rummaging through garbage cans. They'd be sickly and yeah probably pretty benign, criminal-wise.
Sure, the for-profit private prisons would benefit - costs a lot more to keep those prisoners with increasing medical bills, not to mention burial costs. Taxpayers/society gets it in a$$ either way.
If states really wanted to "save billions" on the costs of incarcerating people they could legalize marijuana. But that wouldn't be a "mean" enough solution like tossing elderly people to the wolves when they start to become a burden, and then pretending that it's a "good" thing!
As long as they aren't child molesters or murderers I have no problem with that. Child molesters never stop even if they become impotent they don't care and murderers should never be released for any reason.
And your proof of that is where? No citation. Must have heard it from a buddy.
According to Candace Delong, a renowned FBI criminal psychologist, there is no possiblity of successful re-hab for child molestors.
There is a difference between a child molester and a pedophile. Pedophiles are commonly known to have no possibility of successful rehabilitation, and even amongst pedophiles on the "fixed pedophile" is assigned such a label with certainty. Non-fixed pedophiles can be rehabilitated through behavior modification (such as driving different routes from work to avoid places with children, avoiding situations where they may be alone with a child, seeking a crisis counselor or therapist if they should get a craving they feel they can't control, etc). The success of behavioral therapy is not yet conclusive but neither is the failure.
Child molesters on the other hand are not always pedophiles. Just like pedophiles are not always child molesters. There are varying "shades of grey" for this argument as there are for everything else but I must disagree with Candace Delong unless there is a more specific quote clarifying her position.
pedophile/child molester no sympathy for either one and neither should
EVER be let out of prison those of you who try to differentiate between the two or tell us who can and can't be rehabilitated have obviously never been molested. they should ALL rot in hell or a damp dark jail cell. There is absolutely no excuse for touching a child inappropriately or in a sexual way none whatsoever. Thank you very much.
rj, you'll have to ask Candace herself for an exact quote. I thought she said molestors, but maybe it was pedophiles. I see her alot on shows on Investigation Discovery channel (Wicked Attraction, Facing Evil, Deadly Women), but I don't know her personaly, wish I did, she's pretty neat.
Serial predators rarely stop predation, regardless of their particular fetish, method or age. They generally have to be stopped by outside forces. If they could self-police their urges, they wouldn't be serial to begin with.
skr the only sympathy I have for convicted molesters etc comes from one case I now of. A man was 19, his gay lover was 17...when the 17 year olds family found out they went after the 19 year old and he was convicted. They actually were upset to find their son was gay and probably would not have prosecuted the 19 year old if he was a she.
That was 12 years ago, they are still together, the son will not speak to his family because of what they did.
I do have a problem with age of consent laws where they are different for men and women. or gay vs straight. They should be the same.
Also it bothers me that a couple who are dating who are 16 and 17 and upon his 18th birth day one of them will be a molestor even if his or her lover is only a few months behind. There is a difference between an 18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old and a 22 year old sleeping with a 14 year old.
Of course I was in my early 20s before I slept with anyone and they were usually a little older than me (Just a few years older. I just decided to wait longer than most.
Are they kidding???..If they did that... the rich and the famous would have to serve real jail time instead of 2-3 hours..be less over-crowding then...its the American way that we have jails over-crowded for these rich and famous people to be released ASAP!
Paris Hilton and Lohan will have fits with this idea by ACLU!
I would pay to see Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan locked up together, it would get freaky.......
.
And once these elder inmates are released - what will happen to them? Will they become part of the homeless population? After years in prison, having their meals, clothing and medical needs atttended to, will the they be able to provide for their own needs? Will they be psychologically able to meet the challenges found outside the prison wall? Will easing the burden on the state penal system just transfer the financial burden to the state mental health system or the social services system?
Well..just because you did something wrong ( all crimes are different)..doesn't mean you didn't pay into society before hand ( like social security/unemployment/pensions/etc)..they stll have those rights once released.
You can only get unemployment if you have worked enough hours during a specific limited time before you filed (your "base year" or "alternate base year"), so there may not be that many who qualify for it, and for social security, if they think you're able to work, you can't get your retirement benefits until you're a certain age, so that wouldn't work for all of them, either. Patricia from NY makes a very good point.
Patricia - Yes, they will not be able to be self-sufficient.... but once released they will be able to vote which is the real goal of the ACLU. They expect broke, skill-less, needy people to vote for the party promising them "free" handouts which coincidentally is the ACLU's party - Democrats.
Yes, a lot of states even return felons right to vote once they are released from custody.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
Patricia - many of these men not only were taken care of but they were able to read - write - draw and past their times maybe enriching themselves
NO PEDOPHILES - NO RAPISTS - but what about - the ridiculous three times your out of society -
There would have to be a strict screening - but I have no problem with this
Funny that in the poll most voted to cut education and other programs for the prisoners, then they damn them for not having the skills to work when they get out.
I bet most of those are right wingers who said to cut that.
But don't Republicans believe in
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if yougive him a fishing rod, you feed him for a lifetime."
I cry ageism! How come the old people get all the breaks?! :0) Ahhh, let the old geezers go!
I have some qualms about this. I think that no one who has committed a murder, a sex crime, or a crime of violence against others should be allowed out early. If we're talking, say, a bank robbery with no weapon drawn, or certain drug or property crimes, then yes, there are some circumstances where early release might be appropriate for the elderly. I don't like their definition of elderly, though. A fifty-year-old prisoner who has been in for twenty years is going to be a lot "older" than a fifty year old person who has been in for six or seven years.
And then of course there are those older folks who commit crimes specifically so they can get 'three hots and a cot.' And that's a whole other can of worms.
Yup, that's it - stereotype everyone in prison. They're all identically the same, so lock 'em up and throw away the key. I hope you remember that if YOU ever end up in prison - you'll be there a long, long time.
The punishment should fit the crime. Since everyone in America is now a victim, everyone who is a perp of a crime gets life!
Release of elderly prisoners is just not going to happen. Incarceration of elderly prisoners is big business and that is the way it is.
True, prison unions will never allow it. It would be fun to watch the Democrat politicians decide which interest group to cave to though- prison guard unions or ACLU.
Actually, the unions don't enter into it much. It's the private, for-profit prison companies that are pushing longer sentences and stricter mandatory sentencing.
Tell you the truth..it cost any state/ or Feds more to keep a person locked up..then free these days!
A old timer who robbed a bank to feed himself had no choice maybe..but if he got help will he rob again at age 80?
Plenty of white collar criminals in prisons.
Releasing MADOFF..no way..that's into the BILLIONS of $$$$.. he robbed!
All that would do is shift the financial burden to another part of the budget. And if these criminals are still in jail at that age then someone thought they should be to pay for their crime. Just take them to the vet and have them put down if they are too old to care for anymore. Don't turn them loose because you will essentially be pardoning them. Maybe you should just find a nursing home where they beat the invalids and put them in there. Or build one.
But it would allow them to vote, and they are expected to vote for the party of "free" handouts.
As someone who has spent the last three decades working in the Long Term Care industry, I see this idea, as presented as a very bad idea. Once these folks are out into the community and need long term care, I dont know very many nursing homes willing to take the risk of admitting one. I can see the lawsuits by the other residents & their families just lining up and waiting for just ONE offender to re-offend in the facility.. striking another resident (assault) Taking a piece of clothing (theft) etc.
Perhaps states should consider the idea of geriatric prisons that are basically nursing homes surrounded by chainlink and barbed wire? I'm sure there are more than a few downsized or closed mental health facilities that would fit the bill.
Medicare has a limited amount of money you can use when old..a lot don't understand this..to get mediaid the second part you can't have over $2000 in any bank account and no assets what-so-ever ( own NOTHING)..I know this because I just had to sell my mom's house..and the money of the sale goes to the state..she exhausted all her medicare funds by going in and out of hospitals with doctors galore looking at her and in and out of various nursing homes..this is what happens when old..lack of funds and lack of health benefits..BEWARE!
The average nursing homes today charges $9K-10K per month stay ( and this is the cheap nursing homes).
I want to know what they consider elderly. The story lists over the age of 50 and I don't think of that as elderly. If it was I would have to put myself into that category and I refuse to accept that premise.
Ah David - the older the population gets - the more the bar gets moved - my dear you are now not middle aged but amongst the young
Well they noted that a person in prison ages more physically and mentally...So a Prison 50 is probably more like a 60 year old, depending on the life they lead and how long they are in.
You need to read the article
So what will an old prisoner do for a living once he is released from jail? My guess, he will free housing, food stamps, medicaid and all those things in the social net provides. And...the same people pay for this stuff that pay for the jail...you and me.
I don't want a 50 year old crook living in my neighborhood. If there were some way they could be forced to live as an ACLU family member...but, one can only dream.
Release every prisoner who committed a victimless crime. Execute all those who are career criminals and all murderers, sexual assault, & child predators. Put the rest to hard labor & really make them repay society for all costs of prosecution & restitution. I'm sure there would be less indifference to doing time if hard labor was involved. I'm sure these suggestions would lower the taxpayer burden imposed upon them by the criminals.
Great ideas Wallace. Unfortunately, none of them will fly here in the USA. The ACLU will bring suit as soon as you try and take their TV's away. I'm sure the ACLU also considers hard labor to be cruel and unusual punishment. The Obama administration is doing everything they can to bust Sherriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona because of his get tough on crime policies. They go after states that want to enforce our immigration laws in order to protect illegals and hope that's enough to buy Hispanic votes. That's the way it is now, liberals see the police as the bad guys and the criminals as victims. Success is punished and poverty is rewarded. Liberalism has twisted our world 180 degrees.
Having said that, I'm sure their are plenty of older criminals that would not be a threat to society physically, but they would certainly be a drag on our already unfunded entitlements. Setting the release age at 50 is too young in my book.
Actually Wallace - I suggest if you want to execute people either you pick up the gun or inject the needle into someone's arm while looking into their eyes - and if you are not willing to be the executioner than I suggest you shut up
A prisoner doesn't do hard labor. Some stay in solitary confinement for 10 or 20 years, They are only out of there cells one hour a day for exercise. Once they served their time.They have to be freed
People, listen to yourselves! You're saying that our justice system doesn't work, that people are incapable of change, and no one who commits a crime can be rehabilitated.
I wonder how many people were on the Mayflower and had been released from long prison terms and exiled to the the New World.... Maybe even some of your ancestors?
Back in those days Ken, a long prison term was rarer than a public hanging. Great Britain also sent their bad guys off to islands or colonies far from their shores or gave them a chance to serve on one of His Majestie's ships. I suspect most criminals that came on the Mayflower were guilty of things like killing the King's deer to feed their family or not paying taxes. I think many can be rehabilitated. It's just the few who the system says are rehabbed and set free that end up commiting serious crimes, possibly even murder, that should make all of us concerned.
Oh boy, Ken you are opening a can of historical worms with that post.
Most of the Mayflower colonists to New England were post-Cromwellian anti-monarchists and religious dissenters. They were elitists with staunch religious beliefs and were very picky about who their fellow colonists were.
The Virginia colonies, conversely, welcomed any labor worthy animal on 2 legs, including some prisoners and orphans. However, the wholesale emptying of prisons, primarily on ships to the Caribbean and Pacific islands didn't begin for another 100 years.
maggie- go one step further what about Australia - most were convicted criminals and were welcomed to serve out their term there
Different circumstances !
We have islands to send prisoners. Never let them back in any of the 50 states. That would be a bruden off the tax payers.
Excuse me,there goes the ACLU,half cocked with their stupid comments..How exactly will this save tax payers money if they put them out of the jails? They haven't worked on the outside and they are too old for any kind of work so they would have to apply for help,wouldn't they?? Can anyone explain this to me?? Maybe I am too stupid to see the answers here.
The ACLU is simply doing what it does, looking for new sources of people willing to support Democrat politicians. What better group to vote for promises of "free" handouts than broke, jobless, criminals?
Patriotic Girl...my first thought was "what would these people do with themselves?"...
it is actually quite cruel to let old criminals out to fall on their faces in the gutter
just so the rest of society can inherit their problems
Ken,you need to look into the statistics for rehabilitations..Wallace, I like your thoughts..You need to run for something..It makes sense to me.
I want to know,why do we as taxpayers have to pay for all these killers,child molesters,etc?? They did all these crimes and we pay for their stupidity?? What is this all about?? These prisoners get more benefits than some of our hard working citizens in this country!! How does this make sense?? I think the death penalty should be more of a fear and then maybe people would stop and think of their actions before they do them..I am sure I'm going to set off a fire storm with this statement.
Well they did the crime..but of course they didn't want to do the time..we the good taxpaying citizens put them where they are..so we have to support them now..anything else will be like other countries do..death on the spot...which is uncivilized for most major crimes in the USA...death penalty is in 33 states I believe only..besides our Federal gov't and Military which can put a person to death for a crime if they want.
Think its easy here..look at that guy who killed all those kids camping last year in Norway..no matter what the crime you did in Norway..the max sentence is only 22 years in prison..and their prisons are like resorts that we vacation at here in the USA...very different in Norway.
Sorry Mike your reasoning is off base - many of these people maybe should not have a life internment - laws and your bringing up some one in Norway is BS and you know it
We are talking about the USA - not Norway so can it - that was not the subject here - love it when deflections always come into play
Concentrate - we are talking about the USA
If the American Criminals Liberty Union (ACLU) is for it, it can't be good.
Well, considering the ACLU does a lot of free speech cases then you must not like free speech eh?
I agree with the ACLU. Everyone in prison isn't a killer or a child molester. Sheer ignorance! The U.S. has the longest sentences of any modern nation. This isn't justice, it's vengeance and politics.
totally agree on this!
US has the most populated prison inmates in the world, and one wonder why and how they all got there?
Smoking grass.
Maybe the ACLU could fund an old convicts home for them to live in from the outrageous fees they charge.
Maybe the ACLU could set up an exchange program for all of the illegals it is supporting against the interests of American taxpayers.
For every ex-con they export to Mexico the can keep one illegal.
States could save more by outlawing ACLU frivolous and anti-American lawsuits. ACLU lawyers need to be shamed into retirement. They are the low-lifes of America.
It is no surprise they would want more criminals on the streets, it makes them feel more at home.
How about not incarcerating people who owe 5k to child support for 6 months. That turns 5k they owe into 2o to 30k we pay for them to be in prison for 6+ months.
I know it's all the rage to incarcerate people for owing support, but really? Tax payers should pay 30k for a 5k debit owed by a dead broke parent? I do like the idea of using prisons for the hardcore dangerous types only. If you must punish the elderly, the dead broke, the nonviolent offenders, then we need to find a cheaper more sensible way to do it.
QE another person off base - this conversation is about senior citizens and not about a piece of crap husband
That actually makes sense. Us Americans, being the MORAL people we are, are a bit too eager to punish all of those CLASSLESS HEATHENS out there for very small things. In order for our society to progress, we've got to get off our moral high-horses, because in reality, that over-blown sense of self-righteousness actually causes more problems.
That is age discrimination.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime! Let the old farts serve their sentence!!