American prisons are fast becoming the world’s worst nursing homes, increasingly filled with aging criminals who can barely walk, let alone commit another crime. The idea that we should lock up people for life, even through old age, is often framed as being tough on crime. In reality, it gives years, if not decades, of shelter, food and health care to convicted criminals and redirects money from programs we know do a better job of protecting the public.
Older people are much less likely to commit crime than the young. They are also much more expensive to lock up. Federal prisons with the largest share of older prisoners spend five times as much per person on medical care and 14 times as much on medications as other facilities, according to the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group.
States and counties, which oversee a vast majority of people in prison, cannot run deficits for long or print money, as the federal government can. Every buck that pays for one thing means a dollar less for another. Funds spent on locking up an old inmate could have helped pay for more police officers or other anti-crime initiatives or schools or roads or any of the myriad other demands on local governments.
I have reported on criminal justice issues for more than a decade. If I have learned anything, it’s that crime policy is all about trade-offs, more so than in most other areas. Releasing more old people from prison, however, is close to a free lunch. Not only could it save money, but if the savings are wisely reinvested, it also could improve public safety.
America is heading in the opposite direction. Over the past three decades, the share of prisoners who are 55 or older has multiplied fivefold. Two trends have accelerated the phenomenon: First, young people are committing far less crime, so they are less likely to fill up prisons. Second, tough-on-crime trends led to more life sentences and other long prison penalties, and time is now taking its toll.
The age-crime curve is the least-appreciated fact of criminal justice. If you chart a man’s likelihood to commit crime over his life, the line will hover near zero until he reaches his teens. Then his chance of committing a crime spikes, almost vertically, over the next decade. Nothing is more dangerous, in terms of crime, than a young man in his late teens or early 20s. But starting around his mid-20s, the line starts to drop. This continues for the rest of a typical man’s life. By the time he’s in his 50s, he is less likely to commit crime than he was as a young teenager.
Those trends are true for the general public. Do they apply to convicted criminals? Yes. One federal study tracked prison inmates after their release in 34 states. Nearly 57 percent of ex-inmates 24 or younger ended up back in prison within five years. Fewer than 15 percent of those 65 or older did. In other words, a vast majority of older inmates don’t reoffend.
On some level, we all recognize this. We know the brain doesn’t finish developing until a person’s mid-20s. Physicality matters, too. As a teenager, I could fall out of a tree, get back up and sprint after my friends without feeling a thing. Now, in my mid-30s, I feel my back hurting for days if I make a wrong turn picking up my cat. Crime follows the same facts of life. The kind of poor judgment that leads someone to commit more crime is more common among the young, and so is the physical ability to make good on that poor judgment.
Outliers do exist. But a vast majority of killers are not serial killers, and a vast majority of criminals are not lifelong offenders. Many criminals, maybe even most, committed a crime under the particular circumstances of their age and the moment. Keeping criminals locked up when they’re young absolutely can stop crime. Older inmates, however, pose little threat to the rest of us.
Supporters of the status quo raise two counterarguments: First, people who commit heinous crimes deserve to remain in prison, no matter their age, to demonstrate society’s moral condemnation. Second, long prison sentences, including those that last through old age and death, are good because they deter others from committing crimes.
The first counterargument is about values. I would argue that criminal justice policies should prioritize protecting the public over retribution. We don’t need to turn prisons into nursing homes to show our disapproval of a crime; decades-long prison sentences do a good enough job. But reasonable people can disagree.
The second counterargument, however, is simply wrong. A thorough review of the research found that longer prison sentences’ deterrence effect is “mild or zero.” As part of his analysis, the researcher, David Roodman, tried to replicate prominent studies that claimed evidence of long sentences deterring criminals. He found they contained serious problems that skewed their conclusions. All told, threatening to lock up people until their late 50s, 60s and beyond does little for public safety.
Lawmakers should address this problem with available policies: Governors should issue pardons for older inmates. Parole boards should put more weight on age. Officials should more aggressively use compassionate release laws that on a limited basis let out inmates who are ill. But lawmakers should go further. They should enact laws that require courts to revisit sentences after, say, 20 years. They should grant inmates the presumption of parole in more cases, meaning a parole board would keep a person locked up only with good reason. Broader reform should reduce the use of longer sentences in general.
Some caution is warranted. People deemed dangerous — the criminal justice system has ways of gauging that risk — should not be let out. Policies might exclude certain kinds of crimes.
With the savings from releases, lawmakers could pay for more effective approaches to public safety. Experts often say the United States is overincarcerated and underpoliced, particularly for violent crime. Police departments across the country have reported serious staffing shortages for years, and we know that having fewer officers around leads to more crime. These shortages are one reason nearly half of America’s murderers now get away with it.
You don’t have to mourn an older killer’s lifelong suffering in prison to think reform is a good idea. You can just think, as I do, that the criminal justice system should protect Americans as efficiently and effectively as possible. Paying for the housing, food and health care of someone unlikely to commit a crime should not make the cut.
German Lopez is a writer for The Times editorial board. He is based in Cincinnati.
Source photographs by marconofri, Picsfive, and -oqIpo-/Getty Images
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
German Lopez is a writer for the editorial board. @germanrlopez
The post How to Cut the Prison Population, Save Money and Make Us Safer appeared first on New York Times.
