Manson murderess

[Scarlett]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/us/leslie-van-houten-manson-follower-newsom-denies-parole-fifth-time/?hpt=ob_blogfooterold
anyone have an opinion on whether she should be paroled after 53 years in prison?

[Carrie12345]

I mean…
I personally feel that prison is for rehabilitation and housing people who cannot be rehabilitated. (Not claiming that’s actually what we do.). Doesn’t sound like she’s been rehabilitated one bit. So keep her, I guess!

[Ailaena]

“Ms. Van Houten continues to lack sufficient insight into the risk factors that led to her violent conduct in the past and the skills to protect against her becoming susceptible to similar pressures in the future," the governor said in his Tuesday decision.”

How is she supposed to gain these skills in a prison setting?  Isnt it common knowledge that our prison system doesn’t effectively rehabilitate people just by making them sit in prison? It’s like a big, long Go-to-your-room-and-think-about-what-you’ve-done kind of thing.  (Not that I’m saying prison is a cushy place to be)

Plus, didn’t she already renounce Manson and take full responsibility for her actions 10 years ago? Also, how common is it for a governor to reject the parole board’s decision?  Is he that intimately familiar with the case and the parolee?   Is this is area of expertise? Why have a parole board?  To me, knowing absolutely nothing about anything, this reeks of somebody’s money keeping this woman in prison for their own reasons.

[Idalou]

15 minutes ago, Ailaena said:

“Ms. Van Houten continues to lack sufficient insight into the risk factors that led to her violent conduct in the past and the skills to protect against her becoming susceptible to similar pressures in the future," the governor said in his Tuesday decision.”

How is she supposed to gain these skills in a prison setting?  Isnt it common knowledge that our prison system doesn’t effectively rehabilitate people just by making them sit in prison? It’s like a big, long Go-to-your-room-and-think-about-what-you’ve-done kind of thing.  (Not that I’m saying prison is a cushy place to be)

Plus, didn’t she already renounce Manson and take full responsibility for her actions 10 years ago? Also, how common is it for a governor to reject the parole board’s decision?  Is he that intimately familiar with the case and the parolee?   Is this is area of expertise? Why have a parole board?  To me, knowing absolutely nothing about anything, this reeks of somebody’s money keeping this woman in prison for their own reasons.

If you look at the prison she is in, they seem to have several rehab type programs available to long term inmates. As awful as prisons are with regard to rehab, I would think California would be gone of the ones to offer something.

[Carrie12345]

52 minutes ago, Ailaena said:

How is she supposed to gain these skills in a prison setting?  Isnt it common knowledge that our prison system doesn’t effectively rehabilitate people just by making them sit in prison? It’s like a big, long Go-to-your-room-and-think-about-what-you’ve-done kind of thing.  (Not that I’m saying prison is a cushy place to be

Since we don’t have a cohesive prison system, it’s hard to know.
But I am close friends with a stb PsyD who works with these types of prisoners. It does happen.

[DawnM]

Those murders were horrific in nature.   In 1971 she received the death penalty.   It was changed to LIFE in prison.   She should remain there until her death.   

Prison is not only for rehabilitation, it is to keep our society safe.   It is also, hopefully, to deter others from doing the same crimes.

That may be an unpopular opinion, but that is my opinion.

Edited April 3, 2022 by DawnM

[Faith-manor]

I think it is entirely politically driven. No one wants to be the head dog that lets her out on his/her watch because it won't be popular with a lot of voters. I guess this is one of the consequences of being a notorious murderer. Even if rehabilitated and keeping her makes no sense from a practical, social viewpoint, the politics always wins. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, DawnM said:

Those murders were horrific in nature.   In 1971 she received the death penalty.   It was changed to LIFE in prison.   She should remain there until her death.   

Prison is not only for rehabilitation, it is to keep our society safe.   It is also, hopefully, to deter others from doing the same crimes.

 

It was a horrific crime for sure. 

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I think it is entirely politically driven. No one wants to be the head dog that lets her out on his/her watch because it won't be popular with a lot of voters. I guess this is one of the consequences of being a notorious murderer. Even if rehabilitated and keeping her makes no sense from a practical, social viewpoint, the politics always wins. 

Yes this is how it seems to me as well. 

[Tanaqui]

Murderess?

Weird choice of word there!

With that said, it's impossible to comment on any one sentence or parole decision without considering the entire system as a whole. And the entire system as a whole is... bad. It's just bad. From sentencing, to how we run the prisons, to how we handle parole, it's just badly designed all around. And it'd be easier to say "Okay, this one person is still an ongoing danger" if that didn't also mean saying "So it's okay that she stays in dehumanizing and bad conditions even as she becomes elderly and frail and ever more vulnerable". It'd be easier to say "That person, that person there, should definitely not be released" if there weren't so many who probably ought to be but won't - or who will eventually, but only after serving what really is too long a prison term to start.

If we want to talk about keeping people safe, most people who are locked up for life stop being a danger long before they're too old to hurt anybody.

If we want to talk about deterrence, there's no evidence that a long and bad prison sentence actually deters better than a short and humane one.

[Carrie12345]

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

If we want to talk about keeping people safe, most people who are locked up for life stop being a danger long before they're too old to hurt anybody.

What age would that be?  Because I just googled, and holy cow!!!!! Age isn’t going to cut it for my comfort level.

[Tanaqui]

There are people in prison, right now, who are completely and totally senile. There are patients who are no longer mobile. Do you really think a bedridden patient, with dementia, is a danger to anybody but themself?

[Tap]

To me, murderers, and those who knowingly participate in the crime, get life. Period

She took a life. She doesn't get a life (outside of jail).

[Tanaqui]

5 minutes ago, Tap said:

To me, murderers, and those who knowingly participate in the crime, get life. Period

She took a life. She doesn't get a life (outside of jail).

 

This is a plan that, ultimately, will lead to more murderers getting off scott-free, because "how can you ruin somebody's life for one mistake". Of course, the murderers who get off free will generally be in some way privileged over their victims, but we already see this happening today - that's one of the reasons certain people are less likely to be convicted for the same crimes as certain other people.

So on the one hand you have people who perhaps had a really good reason - self-defense, or defense of somebody else - going to prison for life because they aren't the type of person that juries sympathize with. On the other hand, you have people who really didn't getting no sentence because they're sympathetic or famous or both (I'm not naming names here because politics, but I'm thinking of very specific examples).

And meanwhile, you have what we already have, which is prosecutors saving money and inflating their stats by convincing people to bargain away their constitutional right to a jury trial because "After all, do you want to risk conviction?" even when those people perhaps aren't guilty at all, by any definition of the word, they just got swept up by somebody who wanted to close a case and didn't care too much if they caught the right guy. That very much happens all the time in America, and once you plea bargain you are well and truly screwed because it is very hard to get a conviction struck, no matter what new evidence appears later, if you appear to have confessed.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Tanaqui

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

There are people in prison, right now, who are completely and totally senile. There are patients who are no longer mobile. Do you really think a bedridden patient, with dementia, is a danger to anybody but themself?

It is VERY expensive for the taxpayer, and probably doesn't make us safer since they are using dollars for incarceration that could be used elsewhere such as other rehab programs, not paroling potentially still violent offenders due to prison overcrowding, etc. Even sending them back to local county lock up or a nursing home with an arm cuffed to the bed would be cheaper than prison and prison infirmary. However, it makes the public feel better to see them stay in prison. 

We need and overhaul of the entire system and how we think about the issue.

[Paige]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

There are people in prison, right now, who are completely and totally senile. There are patients who are no longer mobile. Do you really think a bedridden patient, with dementia, is a danger to anybody but themself?

I'm not sure it is actually humane to release elderly prisoners, and especially senile and disabled people, who have had no way to earn money to pay for their "retirement," who have no health insurance, and often few family or friends left on the outside. If we had some sort of plan to ensure they had care, homes, and the ability to live with dignity once released, that would be ok, but I doubt the state takes such care.

 

[Scarlett]

On 4/3/2022 at 5:12 AM, Carrie12345 said:

I mean…
I personally feel that prison is for rehabilitation and housing people who cannot be rehabilitated. (Not claiming that’s actually what we do.). Doesn’t sound like she’s been rehabilitated one bit. So keep her, I guess!

I read the governors statement that she wasn’t rehabilitated. I wonder what that means exactly and why the governor thinks he knows more about it than the parole board.  Just seems strange all around.  

[Scarlett]

18 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Murderess?

Weird choice of word there!

With that said, it's impossible to comment on any one sentence or parole decision without considering the entire system as a whole. And the entire system as a whole is... bad. It's just bad. From sentencing, to how we run the prisons, to how we handle parole, it's just badly designed all around. And it'd be easier to say "Okay, this one person is still an ongoing danger" if that didn't also mean saying "So it's okay that she stays in dehumanizing and bad conditions even as she becomes elderly and frail and ever more vulnerable". It'd be easier to say "That person, that person there, should definitely not be released" if there weren't so many who probably ought to be but won't - or who will eventually, but only after serving what really is too long a prison term to start.

If we want to talk about keeping people safe, most people who are locked up for life stop being a danger long before they're too old to hurt anybody.

If we want to talk about deterrence, there's no evidence that a long and bad prison sentence actually deters better than a short and humane one.

Not sure why it is a weird word.  Is there something I don’t know about the word?  I couldn’t think of her name that is all.  

[Scarlett]

18 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

There are people in prison, right now, who are completely and totally senile. There are patients who are no longer mobile. Do you really think a bedridden patient, with dementia, is a danger to anybody but themself?

I can respect that position but the fact is that is not how the prison system is set up.  Many many people who have taken a life get released.  
 

I guess that is the price she pays for committing a terrible crime in a high profile case.  

Edited April 4, 2022 by Scarlett

[Katy]

The parole board has a motivation to let people out because of prison crowding. 

The governor obviously has political motivations but we are also discussing a horrific crime. If prison psychology reports indicate she is still a danger to society because despite being sorry she doesn’t take responsibility for her own choices, she needs to stay in prison. It sounds like that is the case and she needs to stay where she is. 

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I read the governors statement that she wasn’t rehabilitated. I wonder what that means exactly and why the governor thinks he knows more about it than the parole board.  Just seems strange all around.  

The difference may be personal contact. Parole boards actually interview the convicted person and hear from victims, character witnesses, etc., where the governor (staff initially, I assume), is reading records and recommendations. It’s possible she comes off as very sympathetic and remorseful in person, but when someone who hasn’t met her backs up and looks at things more objectively,  the facts of the psychological reports and other records could be different than the impression the parole board formed. Reading a transcript of a hearing can tell you only what they said at that point in time, not how they said it. If remorse was implied through posture, tone of voice or other body language, the parole board may have, unconsciously or not, assumed remorse that wasn’t stated or part of the psychological evaluations or prison records.

To flip your question, why would the parole board make a recommendation that wasn’t supported by information provided to the governor’s office? 

This is why the governor has the ability to overrule the parole board - they could be wrong. He could be wrong. If he’s wrong, the public is still safe. She is not serving more time than her sentence called for, so her rights are not being violated (parole isn’t guaranteed- it’s not a right). If the parole board is wrong and she endangers someone after release, then justice isn’t satisfied because she didn’t serve her entire sentence and the public is in danger.  It’s a system of checks and balances.

ETA: We also have to wonder if a system that allows plea bargains for some criminals but not others, and that allows for parole for some criminals but not others, is “just” to begin with. The system is inconsistent all the way around. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by TechWife

[TechWife]

22 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

This is a plan that, ultimately, will lead to more murderers getting off scott-free, because "how can you ruin somebody's life for one mistake".

This is only true if one denies the responsibility of the person who committed the crime. Committing a crime is what “ruined” the life, not the sentence. 
 

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by TechWife

[KungFuPanda]

I think that the actual woman is not a consideration at all. It doesn’t matter how reformed she is or isn’t. NOBODY is setting a Manson murderer free. Even if it was the right thing to do. Even if less promising prisoners in the same prison were paroled, THIS prisoner will never get out. It’s too big of a PR risk and nobody will sign up for that. 

[TechWife]

21 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

 Even sending them back to ... nursing home with an arm cuffed to the bed would be cheaper than prison and prison infirmary.

Nursing homes and hospitals aren't prisons, though. They are not set up to do that.  Here, if a prisoner is hospitalized, not only are they handcuffed to the bed, but the Dept. of Corrections provides guards 24/7 during the course of the hospitalization. It would likely work the same in a nursing home. I doubt it would be less expensive than having them in jail by the time the guards and the facility are paid.

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

Nursing homes and hospitals aren't prisons, though. They are not set up to do that.  Here, if a prisoner is hospitalized, not only are they handcuffed to the bed, but the Dept. of Corrections provides guards 24/7 during the course of the hospitalization. It would likely work the same in a nursing home. I doubt it would be less expensive than having them in jail by the time the guards and the facility are paid.

I was thinking of the case of dementia, terminal cancer, etc. these are people better served by a nursing facility that is less expensive to run than a prison infirmary, which as I understand it, is WAY more expensive to operate. I should have said that. I wasn't thinking of a prisoner still fit enough to do a lot of harm. So I was assuming someone who did not need to be guarded 24/7 until death. More of an "on hospice" type situation. I have heard of people costing the tax payers a gargantuan some of money for end of life and dementia care in prison that would cost less on the outside such as on hospice in a nursing home. I really didn't make my thoughts very clear. Sorry about that.

[Katy]

I think we should free everyone involved in non violent drug crimes before we worry about murderers.  I'm all for prison reform, but paroling people sentenced to death isn't even close to the top of the list.

[Faith-manor]

Just now, Katy said:

I think we should free everyone involved in non violent drug crimes before we worry about murderers.  I'm all for prison reform, but paroling people sentenced to death isn't even close to the top of the list.

I agree with this. 100%. The drug thing has been an excuse to build prisons and fill them. Ugh. Sure, I get it, the government is not a fan of drug users, and yes, they can cost the tax payer a bit of coin for their healthcare. On the other hand, they cost a LOT more to incarcerate, and if they didn't assault or kill someone or set fire to a building or whatever, wouldn't the money of incarceration be better spent on rehab and mental health assistance? We incarcerate way too many people in this nation. 

[SKL]

Not in favor of her release.  The crimes were so horrific and recent enough that a pretty good % of Americans still remember the horror of it, even if Ms. VH doesn't.

She's 72.  That isn't very old.  Many if not most people that age are fit enough to commit crimes.

With that said ... what does a person like that plan to do when she gets out?  Live with family?  Get a job?  Join a retirement community?  Or just sit alone somewhere until she dies?

[Farrar]

When my relative who was considered a serial killer had advanced Parkinson's and dementia, they did release her from serving a bajillion years in prison for medical reasons. And this was in a "tough on crime" state, so my impression is that the general political bent of the state doesn't really tell you much, which was implied earlier in the thread. My impression is that some of this depends on whether anyone is willing to undertake or just set up care. There's not a good systemic set up and obviously there should be.

[Spryte]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

Nursing homes and hospitals aren't prisons, though. They are not set up to do that.  Here, if a prisoner is hospitalized, not only are they handcuffed to the bed, but the Dept. of Corrections provides guards 24/7 during the course of the hospitalization. It would likely work the same in a nursing home. I doubt it would be less expensive than having them in jail by the time the guards and the facility are paid.

(Trigger warning, re: assault) This topic has been rumbling around my head recently, due to local events. I haven’t commented here, thus far, but here goes: Some of you remember my elderly mother was sexually assaulted by a stranger, before living with me. We will never know who did it, likely, though we have his DNA. She’s recovered remarkably well, and I’m proud of her, it’s been a long road. She now lives in the nursing home where my ILs also reside. It’s highly rated, a nice place, well respected. She seems happy. And — last week we found out that an 89 year old resident sexually assaulted another resident at least twice. He’s in jail currently. My FIL is beside himself, trying to protect my mom from the news (which I think is futile, at this point, but he is sweet to worry about how my mom will feel). She did not see the newspaper, and missed the meeting about addressing it. But she’s going to hear it one way or another, and I expect her anxiety and PTSD to skyrocket.

I have thought a lot about this man, in the last week. He’s 89. He’s probably got some level of dementia, as far as I know, he’s often in a wheelchair, and he needs the 24/7 care of a nursing home. FIL called him rough around the edges, but nothing that would make anyone think he’d do something like this. I don’t see how his needs can possibly be met in jail, and I have sympathy for that, but I absolutely do not want him returning to the nursing home with my vulnerable, fragile mom who is just beginning to be herself again after what she went through! Even if he had guards and stayed in his room, it would change the tone of their safe home. It’s like asking people to house a rapist in their home, after being victimized. His victim is still there. So he’d have to go to a different care facility, and it would change the tone of their facility to have guards and so on. I know that I would have chosen another facility for our parents, if they were housing criminals who needed guards, most likely, especially if I knew they were violent offenders.

What do we do with 89 yr olds who commit these crimes? Do they need their own facility? 

(I don’t have answers. And my thoughts are complicated because of my mother’s particular situation, and of course, this is all very recent.)

 

 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Spryte said:

(Trigger warning, re: assault) This topic has been rumbling around my head recently, due to local events. I haven’t commented here, thus far, but here goes: Some of you remember my elderly mother was sexually assaulted by a stranger, before living with me. We will never know who did it, likely, though we have his DNA. She’s recovered remarkably well, and I’m proud of her, it’s been a long road. She now lives in the nursing home where my ILs also reside. It’s highly rated, a nice place, well respected. She seems happy. And — last week we found out that an 89 year old resident sexually assaulted another resident at least twice. He’s in jail currently. My FIL is beside himself, trying to protect my mom from the news (which I think is futile, at this point, but he is sweet to worry about how my mom will feel). She did not see the newspaper, and missed the meeting about addressing it. But she’s going to hear it one way or another, and I expect her anxiety and PTSD to skyrocket.

I have thought a lot about this man, in the last week. He’s 89. He’s probably got some level of dementia, as far as I know, he’s often in a wheelchair, and he needs the 24/7 care of a nursing home. FIL called him rough around the edges, but nothing that would make anyone think he’d do something like this. I don’t see how his needs can possibly be met in jail, and I have sympathy for that, but I absolutely do not want him returning to the nursing home with my vulnerable, fragile mom who is just beginning to be herself again after what she went through! Even if he had guards and stayed in his room, it would change the tone of their safe home. It’s like asking people to house a rapist in their home, after being victimized. His victim is still there. So he’d have to go to a different care facility, and it would change the tone of their facility to have guards and so on. I know that I would have chosen another facility for our parents, if they were housing criminals who needed guards, most likely, especially if I knew they were violent offenders.

What do we do with 89 yr olds who commit these crimes? Do they need their own facility? 

(I don’t have answers. And my thoughts are complicated because of my mother’s particular situation, and of course, this is all very recent.)

And I think that with cognitive decline, it isn't unusual for some people to lose the inhibitions that kept them from doing these things when they were younger.  There's a reason for the term "dirty old man."

As a child, I was fondled by at least two "dirty old men."  A guy doesn't have to be young and athletic to overpower a smaller person, especially a smaller and vulnerable female.

[Harriet Vane]

@Spryte I do remember the whole awful story. I do not think that man should ever be in that facility again. 

[Spryte]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

And I think that with cognitive decline, it isn't unusual for some people to lose the inhibitions that kept them from doing these things when they were younger.  There's a reason for the term "dirty old man."

As a child, I was fondled by at least two "dirty old men."  A guy doesn't have to be young and athletic to overpower a smaller person, especially a smaller and vulnerable female.

Not liking that you had encounters with dirty old men. Just agreeing that cognitive decline can be a factor in losing inhibitions. 

I would never have imagined my almost 79 yr old mom going through what she did, and conversely would not have imagined an 89 yr old man doing what that man did. I wouldn’t even have thought he could do it, but he did.

We trust our nursing homes with our very vulnerable loved ones. I don’t know the answer about how prisoners with dementia/aging issues should be housed, jail isn’t a good answer probably, but my gut reaction is, “Not in my parents’ home!” 

[Spryte]

9 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

@Spryte I do remember the whole awful story. I do not think that man should ever be in that facility again. 

Thanks, yes, I remember your support. It was quite the three day thread, unfolding from my thinking she’d had a stroke or had a UTI, the days of hospital delirium, to finally hearing her articulate what happened and getting a detective involved. You (and others) here really helped me navigate that experience. Thank you.

Anyway, not intending to derail, just pondering what it means and looks like to house elderly inmates within the general nursing home population. 
 

[Faith-manor]

I think how we house and care for elderly, infirm prisoners is something this country really doesn't take the time to consider. One option might be a dedicated hospice facility with security, but not so much lock down, not so many guards, not so much overhead to operate (guns concertina wire, etc.), and then those that are chronic care or end of life go there. I think it would be cheaper but also isn't letting them out. Then it frees up a spot for an able bodied, younger threat to society to be kept for their full sentence like a car jacker. So basically a nursing home, hospice facility of minimum security which is way less expensive from what I am told than an infirmary in a medium or maximum security penitentiary. Only those who are not a threat because they are in such bad, physical condition, go there. And we may need to consider a dementia, lock down ward some place, possibly a stand alone facility because no matter what they did when they were sane, alzheimers is a whole different ball of wax, and requires people with training to manage, not prison guards even if they deserve to be in prison. I think looking at it from a wider lens, the impact of dementia riddled patients on prison staff not equipped to handle it, prisoners not convicted of violent crimes, etc. We need to consider that not everyone in prison is a murderer, rapist, arsonist, kidnapper so how we choose to handle these things has an impact on people who could be rehabilitated and returned to society. So many intricacies to consider.

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I was thinking of the case of dementia, terminal cancer, etc. these are people better served by a nursing facility that is less expensive to run than a prison infirmary, which as I understand it, is WAY more expensive to operate. I should have said that. I wasn't thinking of a prisoner still fit enough to do a lot of harm. So I was assuming someone who did not need to be guarded 24/7 until death. More of an "on hospice" type situation. I have heard of people costing the tax payers a gargantuan some of money for end of life and dementia care in prison that would cost less on the outside such as on hospice in a nursing home. I really didn't make my thoughts very clear. Sorry about that.

I do not understand why you think the state giving those services outside of prison is going to be cheaper or why you think such people can’t still be violent.  They very much can be. 

This is from 2004. It’s not better as far as I’m aware.

So count me out of wanting myself or a loved on to share a nursing home with a violent convicted offender. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abuse-in-the-nursing-home/#app

Violent convicted murderers should serve their sentences. Period. 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I was thinking of the case of dementia, terminal cancer, etc. these are people better served by a nursing facility that is less expensive to run than a prison infirmary, which as I understand it, is WAY more expensive to operate. I should have said that. I wasn't thinking of a prisoner still fit enough to do a lot of harm. So I was assuming someone who did not need to be guarded 24/7 until death. More of an "on hospice" type situation. I have heard of people costing the tax payers a gargantuan some of money for end of life and dementia care in prison that would cost less on the outside such as on hospice in a nursing home. I really didn't make my thoughts very clear. Sorry about that.

Hospice care is currently provided within the correctional system. Memory care is not nursing home care and it's incredibly expensive and not covered by insurance, Medicare and most Medicaid programs. Again, if they were to go to a nursing home, they would have to be guarded 24/7 no matter what their mental status is.  It's less costly to do this in the existing system. They would have to parole the person in order for them to go without guards.  Many people with dementia & related illnesses are otherwise healthy and can live for years after diagnosis. How is it justice to allow someone who has dementia at 70 to be paroled, but not someone who is a healthy 80 year old? It's basically punishing someone because they are healthy if that is the reasoning.

Discharging ill patients only moves the cost from one government funded program to another. Anyone who has been in prison for a lengthy time has likely not put in the minimum amount of time working to draw social security, nor do they qualify for Medicare. They are unlikely to have significant financial resources, and I have no idea of the likelihood that they would have family that would be both willing and able to take care of them. That pushes them onto the state Medicaid program. Whether or not the care they need is available through that program is entirely dependent upon federal & state laws as well as provider & funding availability. There is a certain amount of dark humor among people who are chronically or terminally ill about committing a crime in order to get adequate health care in the prison system because what they need is covered there and they can't afford to pay for it on their own or their insurance company won't cover it.

Discharging a person that doesn't have a clear, permanent support system for their chronic/terminal/fatal illness is abusive, IMO.

It's only a clear cut decision if finances are the only thing being considered.

ETA: Others have addressed the safety issues of having a violent criminal in a nursing home. It is more important than the finances. People with dementia and related issues aren't sweet little old men or sweet little old ladies.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by TechWife

[Katy]

2 hours ago, Spryte said:

(Trigger warning, re: assault) This topic has been rumbling around my head recently, due to local events. I haven’t commented here, thus far, but here goes: Some of you remember my elderly mother was sexually assaulted by a stranger, before living with me. We will never know who did it, likely, though we have his DNA. She’s recovered remarkably well, and I’m proud of her, it’s been a long road. She now lives in the nursing home where my ILs also reside. It’s highly rated, a nice place, well respected. She seems happy. And — last week we found out that an 89 year old resident sexually assaulted another resident at least twice. He’s in jail currently. My FIL is beside himself, trying to protect my mom from the news (which I think is futile, at this point, but he is sweet to worry about how my mom will feel). She did not see the newspaper, and missed the meeting about addressing it. But she’s going to hear it one way or another, and I expect her anxiety and PTSD to skyrocket.

I have thought a lot about this man, in the last week. He’s 89. He’s probably got some level of dementia, as far as I know, he’s often in a wheelchair, and he needs the 24/7 care of a nursing home. FIL called him rough around the edges, but nothing that would make anyone think he’d do something like this. I don’t see how his needs can possibly be met in jail, and I have sympathy for that, but I absolutely do not want him returning to the nursing home with my vulnerable, fragile mom who is just beginning to be herself again after what she went through! Even if he had guards and stayed in his room, it would change the tone of their safe home. It’s like asking people to house a rapist in their home, after being victimized. His victim is still there. So he’d have to go to a different care facility, and it would change the tone of their facility to have guards and so on. I know that I would have chosen another facility for our parents, if they were housing criminals who needed guards, most likely, especially if I knew they were violent offenders.

What do we do with 89 yr olds who commit these crimes? Do they need their own facility? 

(I don’t have answers. And my thoughts are complicated because of my mother’s particular situation, and of course, this is all very recent.)

I’m so sorry.  I think most states keep them in prison unless a judge rules for compassionate release, but I don’t know statistics.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I think how we house and care for elderly, infirm prisoners is something this country really doesn't take the time to consider. One option might be a dedicated hospice facility with security, but not so much lock down, not so many guards, not so much overhead to operate (guns concertina wire, etc.), and then those that are chronic care or end of life go there. I think it would be cheaper but also isn't letting them out. Then it frees up a spot for an able bodied, younger threat to society to be kept for their full sentence like a car jacker. So basically a nursing home, hospice facility of minimum security which is way less expensive from what I am told than an infirmary in a medium or maximum security penitentiary. Only those who are not a threat because they are in such bad, physical condition, go there. And we may need to consider a dementia, lock down ward some place, possibly a stand alone facility because no matter what they did when they were sane, alzheimers is a whole different ball of wax, and requires people with training to manage, not prison guards even if they deserve to be in prison. I think looking at it from a wider lens, the impact of dementia riddled patients on prison staff not equipped to handle it, prisoners not convicted of violent crimes, etc. We need to consider that not everyone in prison is a murderer, rapist, arsonist, kidnapper so how we choose to handle these things has an impact on people who could be rehabilitated and returned to society. So many intricacies to consider.

My father had dementia. Most of the time he was active and moving about - he wasn't bed bound until the last week of his life. Some dementia patients become violent. Sexual promiscuity isn't uncommon. Dementia care isn't cut and dried. 

Actually, there are extensive correctional systems that have extensive infirmary systems. These infirmary systems employ physicians, nurses and other providers. They have contracts with pharmacies and other intermittent providers (like dentists) as needed. AFAIK, pretty much they only thing they don't do is surgery, trauma injury, ICU level care and child birth. I'm sure this varies slightly depending on location and type of prison, but this is done for a myriad of reasons, primarily safety and expense. I can see benefits to developing a dedicated area to memory care within a large, existing, prison infirmary system, but I would never assume less supervision or security is needed. Private memory care units are locked units, after all.

Prisons care for elderly people all the time and also have hospice care available. Why would someone who is elderly or infirm be entitled to less "lock down" than a healthy person of the same age who is there under the same or similar circumstances? I really don't understand.

 

[Faith-manor]

33 minutes ago, TechWife said:

My father had dementia. Most of the time he was active and moving about - he wasn't bed bound until the last week of his life. Some dementia patients become violent. Sexual promiscuity isn't uncommon. Dementia care isn't cut and dried. 

Actually, there are extensive correctional systems that have extensive infirmary systems. These infirmary systems employ physicians, nurses and other providers. They have contracts with pharmacies and other intermittent providers (like dentists) as needed. AFAIK, pretty much they only thing they don't do is surgery, trauma injury, ICU level care and child birth. I'm sure this varies slightly depending on location and type of prison, but this is done for a myriad of reasons, primarily safety and expense. I can see benefits to developing a dedicated area to memory care within a large, existing, prison infirmary system, but I would never assume less supervision or security is needed. Private memory care units are locked units, after all.

Prisons care for elderly people all the time and also have hospice care available. Why would someone who is elderly or infirm be entitled to less "lock down" than a healthy person of the same age who is there under the same or similar circumstances? I really don't understand.

 

Savings. I am not saying they deserve less lock down. Providing that IF the person doesn't need it in order to be safe is very very expensive. But whatever. The whole system is a mess and we are paying ungodly sums of money for incarcerate people sometimes unnecessarily. However, so don't have a dog in this fight either.

[TechWife]

37 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Savings. I am not saying they deserve less lock down. Providing that IF the person doesn't need it in order to be safe is very very expensive. But whatever. The whole system is a mess and we are paying ungodly sums of money for incarcerate people sometimes unnecessarily. However, so don't have a dog in this fight either.

I don't think there would be a savings for the reasons I and others have stated elsewhere in the thread. The safety of the person isn't the issue. The safety of the staff and the general public is a significant issue. Justice is the issue.

To attach a monetary value onto a person's life and as a result to allow their health to be the determining factor to the level of incarceration is not just. "I'm sorry, justice isn't served in this case because it's just more expensive for this person than it is for the other person over there. So they will be subject to the full weight of the justice system, but you don't have to. We don't want to pay for your expenses. You aren't worth it. Whoever you harmed isn't worth the expense. Upholding the law isn't worth the expense. Justice isn't worth the expense. So, we'll just let it go this one time. In the meantime, perfectly healthy person will be here another 20 years under full security. S*&ks to be them."

ETA: when you take for profit prison contracts into account, The whole idea of it being too expensive to incarcerate someone at the sentenced level takes on a whole different meaning. “Too expensive” and “cuts into the profit” are synonymous. Then, justice is not the consideration, money is.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by TechWife