Prison and Program Review Committee
Resource: J O'meara, Gregory. (2010) article in this week’s Electronic Reserve Readings
Write and 1,050- to 1,400-word paper that summarizes the arguments for and against confining sick and older adult prisoners in jail.
Which of these arguments do they think have merit?
What values underlie each position?
How does medical parole or release fit into this discussion?
Provide alternative solutions to the problem and discuss their overall impacts.
Parole for the elderly
CJHS/430
Parole for the elderly
The idea of sympathetic release of ill and elderly prisoners is not new. In 1994, Professor Russell published consideration of medical parole and compassionate release programs of district and fifty states of Columbia. Only three authorities, the District of Kansas, Maine and Columbia had no programs for the release of fatally ill prisoners. Russell observed that twenty-two states informed that they have no sympathetic release program but they have at least one way by which fatally ill inmate can seek release.
These methods were:
• General claim for the Executive kindness
• Commutation of the sentence through administrative procedures of DOC with no specific condition relating to terminally ill.
• Normal parole application actions, where prisoner’s medical condition is one factor that to be considered in ordinary parole judgment.
Therefore, twenty years back, states acknowledged the need for this security valve still without providing precise legislative basis for it. Prof Russell sustained that compassionate release laws address concerns of the both states and the inmates extreme better than to perform more general compassion petitions or administrative procedures. Current parole policies can be described as penal populism. In my view, the following arguments may have merit:
1) Extensive increase in police inspection and arrests.
2) Elimination of treatment as correctional goal.
3) Exceptional expansion of prison population.
In addition to common
Write and 1,050- to 1,400-word paper that summarizes the arguments for and against confining sick and older adult prisoners in jail.
Which of these arguments do they think have merit?
What values underlie each position?
How does medical parole or release fit into this discussion?
Provide alternative solutions to the problem and discuss their overall impacts.
Parole for the elderly
CJHS/430
Parole for the elderly
The idea of sympathetic release of ill and elderly prisoners is not new. In 1994, Professor Russell published consideration of medical parole and compassionate release programs of district and fifty states of Columbia. Only three authorities, the District of Kansas, Maine and Columbia had no programs for the release of fatally ill prisoners. Russell observed that twenty-two states informed that they have no sympathetic release program but they have at least one way by which fatally ill inmate can seek release.
These methods were:
• General claim for the Executive kindness
• Commutation of the sentence through administrative procedures of DOC with no specific condition relating to terminally ill.
• Normal parole application actions, where prisoner’s medical condition is one factor that to be considered in ordinary parole judgment.
Therefore, twenty years back, states acknowledged the need for this security valve still without providing precise legislative basis for it. Prof Russell sustained that compassionate release laws address concerns of the both states and the inmates extreme better than to perform more general compassion petitions or administrative procedures. Current parole policies can be described as penal populism. In my view, the following arguments may have merit:
1) Extensive increase in police inspection and arrests.
2) Elimination of treatment as correctional goal.
3) Exceptional expansion of prison population.
In addition to common
References: J O’Meara, Gregory. (2010). Compassion and the public interest: Wisconsin 's new compassionate release legislation. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 23(1), 33-38. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2010.23.1.33