Should one’s age play a significant role in how much time one does for a crime?
Once someone reaches a certain age, should they be spared prison?
A story in today’s New York Times addresses this very issue.
I was flabbergasted to learn that senior citizens are essentially sent a “get out of jail free card” with their Social Security check each month.
The article listed numerous examples where age played a significant role in one’s sentencing.
For instance:
“…this spring, an 85-year-old man who admitted providing sensitive military information to Israel was spared prison by a judge, who cited the man’s advanced age and said sending him to prison would ’serve no purpose.’ “
Really? A man was spared prison primarily because of his advanced age? That mightmake sense if the spy did not know how old he was, but my guess he is likely did when he compromised sensitive American security.
While I recognize that an extended prison sentence could conceivably be a life sentence for someone up there in years, the person should have considered that when they perpetrated their crime.
The reality is anyone behind bars will suffer — old or young.
If I were to be sentenced to jail time and a friend or family member were to die, or I be diagnosed with a terminal illness, I would suffer, too.
Hell, I would suffer just over the loss of my civil liberties and freedom. But isn’t that the point of prison?
While I believe an individual’s circumstances should be considered when sentenced, I don’t believe one’s age should play as large of a role as it apparently does.
Do the crime, and the do the time — especially if you are old enough to realize it is wrong.
