The State of Aging: Prisoners and Compassionate Release Programs

Link to article

When 69-year-old Betty Smithey was released from Arizona State Prison last week after serving 49 years for murdering a 15-month-old child, walking with a cane, she gave a face to a population that often goes unnoticed -- the aging men and women in our prison system.

With some 246,000 men and women over 50 in America's overly stretched prison system, should we as a society consider releasing the fragile, the ill, and the dying among these prisoners?

In theory, we already have. Compassionate, medical, or geriatric prisoner release laws have been around since the 1970s in the U.S. But the reality is that while such programs currently exist in 41 states, they are rarely if ever used. From 2001 until 2008, Colorado released just three prisoners under its compassionate release policy. Oregon has never released more than two prisoners per year and as of 2009, Maryland and Oklahoma had never released a single prisoner under their geriatric release provisions.

The reason behind such sparing use? Politics. Public opinion is often against such programs and their narrow eligibility criteria and complicated bureaucratic procedures (including a lengthy referral and review process) often deter prisoners from applying in the first place.
In the meantime, our elderly prisoner population continues to grow at an alarming rate, forcing our correctional system to act as a nationwide long-term care facility -- something it was never designed to be.

Historically, the U.S. legal system approach to incarceration has ebbed and flowed between two attitudes -- compassionate and punitive. In recent decades, stricter sentencing laws and the resulting long-term confinement of older adults have produced nothing less than a morally and financially expensive humanitarian crisis.

In the United States, current estimates suggest that older adults cost about three to five times more than their younger counterparts. The average annual cost of care for the typical prisoner is approximately $5,500. From ages 55 to 59 however, that price tag doubles to $11,000, and it goes up nearly eightfold for prisoners aged 80 and over, to $40,000.

Many of these prisoners languish behind penitentiary walls in an environment designed for younger more healthy inmates. The culture of gangs and violence typical to prisons is particularly hard on the elderly. Even the most basic of activities, such as walking at a steady pace or dressing oneself, can be difficult without assistance -- something not every prison has the budget for or enough well trained staff available to provide.

But what about public safety? Offenders who reach old age present lower levels of danger to the public and are less likely to recommit crimes, compared to their younger counterparts. A recent American Civil Liberty report documented low rates of recidivism among older people, including those convicted of violent crimes. Some are too ill even to remember their crimes, or no longer have the capacity to commit a crime. The use of risk assessment programs can also be used to determine the level of risk to personal and public safety, screening out those considered still a danger to society. These combined characteristics bolster the argument for alternative sentencing and the leveraging of compassionate release programs for older adults in the criminal justice system.

Once released, community service agencies including hospitals, community health centers, nursing homes, and hospices, will need to open their arms to this population, especially the terminally ill nearing their end-of-life.

Yes, the associated financial costs will transfer to other agencies and organizations - but at least these organizations are equipped to assist the elderly. By releasing non-violent elderly prisoners into
 their care, we can prevent the bankrupting of our collective budgets and of our collective souls.
Deciding what to do about an aging prison population is complicated, not to mention a bureaucratic mess. But we can no longer afford to ignore it. We must consider the dignity of every person -- including the imprisoned.

It is time to open our blind eyes and impoverished hearts and hear the cries of agony and misery of our fellow human beings with mercy and forgiveness. In the words of Buddha--"To forgive is to set a prisoner free and realize that prisoner was you."
Tina Maschi is a Public Voices Fellow with the Op-Ed Project.
For more on aging in the criminal justice system, see here.

Perfect Storm in Arkansas County Worsens Prison-Based Gerrymandering

by Hillary Fenton, August 10, 2012

Like many counties across the country, Jackson County in northeastern Arkansas relied on the 2010 Census to determine its population for redistricting purposes. Unfortunately, because the Census Bureau counts those in prison where they are incarcerated rather than where they are from, Jackson County’s use of unadjusted census data has resulted in distortion of democracy among its Justice of the Peace districts, amplified even more by a shrinking county population and a growing prison population.
This distortion is a result of prison-based gerrymandering, or the counting of nonvoting prison populations as part of the total population during redistricting. Because the widely-used U.S. Census continues to count those in prison at their place of incarceration, prison-based gerrymandering is a problem nationwide. Even though Arkansas state law declares that incarceration does not change a person’s legal domicile, Jackson County ended up including its prison population in its redistricting data because they relied on unadjusted census counts.

Jackson County is home to two large state prisons, the Grimes and McPherson Units. Grimes is a medium security men’s facility, and McPherson is a women’s prison and includes the women’s death row. The two facilities were opened in 1998 by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, and were later transferred to the state and expanded. According to the 2010 Census, the total incarcerated population of both facilities is 1,777.

After both the 2000 and 2010 censuses, Jackson County drew the 5th Justice of the Peace district to encompass the Grimes and McPherson Units, including the prison populations in the total district population. After the redistricting based on the 2000 Census, the populations of the Grimes and McPherson Units made up nearly two thirds (64%) of District 5’s total population. After redistricting following the 2010 Census, due to a 2.4% drop in the county’s overall population and a rise in the prison population, the percentage of the district population made up by the incarcerated population rocketed to 87%.

Prison-based gerrymandering distorts democracy because including prison populations during redistricting inflates the political power of those voting in a prison district. Each of Jackson County’s Justice of the Peace districts should, based on the Census, have around 2000 people. According to the census, each district does have around that number; however, because of the inclusion of the Grimes and McPherson Units in District 5’s population, only 278 people out of the total population of 2055 are eligible to vote. This means that, even though District 5 has a voting population a fraction of a size of other districts, those 278 people are still able to elect a whole representative for themselves just like those in districts with 2000 voters. The inclusion of the prisons in the total population of District 5 artificially inflates the political power of the voters there because it gives 1 voter in District 5 the same say in county government as 7 voters in other districts. Redistricting is supposed to ensure that citizens are equally represented in government, but in places like Jackson County, the inclusion of prison populations during redistricting gives disproportionate influence to those in prison districts. In Arkansas, this problem is not limited to Jackson County; several other counties in the state also drew Justice of the Peace districts that were distorted by prison populations in the last redistricting cycle.

Fortunately, several states require that counties and municipalities exclude incarcerated populations during redistricting, and more than 100 county and municipal governments across the country choose to do this on their own. Four of those counties are in Arkansas: Lee, Lincoln, St. Francis, and Hot Spring counties all chose to modify 2010 Census data and leave out their prison populations during 2010 redistricting. Though it is encouraging that some states and many local governments have acted to prevent prison-based gerrymandering, ideally the Census Bureau should count incarcerate people at their home addresses in the first place, a solution that would eradicate the problem of prison-based gerrymandering nationwide.

Her Letters From Prison | Heather Heaton

We wanted to share this press release from Heather Heaton.

Heather Heaton's new ebook series "Her Letters from Prison" is an inspirational resource for reading pleasure, review, contemplation, and discussion, especially for Christian readers. 

"Her Letters from Prison" (Parts 1 & 2) will validate your inquisitive thoughts and doubts about what goes on in women’s prisons; and it can justify the efforts spent toward women’s prison ministries.  These two ebooks can be a motivational (tell-it-like-it-is) resource for drug rehab/prevention and reentry programs, especially when combined with "Her Letters from Prison – Part 4:  Recycled – Second Time Around".

"Her Letters from Prison" is a non-fiction, inspirational, romance ebook series; with Heather's original letters (with prison art) included as images for authenticity.  Heather's story describes how female offenders are perceived and handled (often abused) in the criminal justice system.  The story continues (Part 4) to describe Heather's first two years of re-entry back into the real world and how she ended a destructive narcissistic-codependent relationship.

"Her Letters from Prison:  Women-in-Prison" (Part 3) contains two PowerPoint presentations prepared for the University of Alabama/Women's Studies "Women in Prison" conference.  Both presentations are based on Parts 1 & 2 of Heather's story; and they are entitled "Women-in-Prison (Almost Invisible)" and "Women-in-Prison (Facts/Myths)".  Also, Heather's personal testimony is included in the Part 3 publication.

You can go to http://www.heather-heaton.com, and click on a direct link to Heather's Amazon.com and/or Smashwords "book pages" for “Her Letters from Prison”.  Alternatively, you can visit Heather’s author pages:

1. http://www.amazon.com/author/heatherheaton
2. https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/heatherdh

Heather’s ebooks are also available in paperback format.  The paperback book ("Her Letters from Prison") may be obtained by contacting Heather through her website "contact" form.  The paperback book contains Part 1, 2, and 3 ebooks.  "Her Letters from Prison - Part 4" will be published as its own paperback book soon.