So do you think that the person's popularity determines the outcome more than the crime itself?  Seems to me to be so.  

Popularity and a good lawyer go a long way to saving your butt (Lindsey Lohan) On the other hand, popular opinion, an overzealous prosecutor can work against you, (Scooter Libby, Conrad Black).

Jerry; regarding your friend, as a gun owner, I have no problem with someone having a loaded pistol in the house, but when he came home and caught them, did he have the gun with him? Did he usually carry it? Did he usually keep his gun in the nightstand? Could he have suspected something was going on and hatred was building in him so he started carrying his gun?  You’re a lawyer so you know facts like this make a difference.

Having said all of that, if I caught someone abusing my daughter and my gun was downstairs where it is now, I could see myself going down the steps, getting it, loading it and coming back upstairs and blowing someone’s brains out. It would take me maybe 60 – 90 seconds to do all that. In that time, would a reasonable person expect me to stop and consider what I was doing? If I were on that jury, I’m not sure I could convict a guy who did that.  If I were on a parole board, I’m not sure I could keep a guy in jail for doing that.

WM -

This discussion can take many turns and twists.

I agree with all you said.  Maybe I was taking a simpler approach.  Incarceration of anyone is a real financial burden to the state.  There is starting to be some intelligent writing among criminal authorities about the need to keep older prisoners locked up.

Maybe I'm an old softy at heart, but I question whether a 64 year old man who committed a crime of passion 20 year earlier is any kind of threat to society.  Is it worth the high cost to keep such a person in jail just for retribution's sake alone?

There was a show on of the cable channels not long ago about prisoners in one state who are in their 70s and even 80s.  Just their health care costs alone are mind boggling.  If you saw one of these old guys on the street, you would think he was someone's grandpa.

I have a friend who used to run a company that provided dental clinics in our Ohio prisons.  Most prisoners are people who never had the best dental care to start with, and just the most basic care, like doing extractions, fillings, etc.; certainly nothing exotic like impants or cosmetic dentistry; is very expensive for the state.

I am coming to the belief that there is a time when many prisoners can be let out as they age, as their ability or propensity to do harm to others diminishes to nearly zero.

Now there are exceptions, and Charles Manson comes to mind as one of those.  He is so evil that he needs to stay behind bars until he dies.  But he is far from the average older prisoner who, sometime in the distant past, committed a crime that isn't likely to be repeated.

And, as the population ages in general with the baby boomker generation getting older by the day, the % of older prisoners is rising fairly dramatically.

The U.S. already incarcerates a higher % of its population that most other developed countries.  Has it solved anything?

Jerry, I agree with all that.  If this guy was a prosecutor, then he obviously had some intelligence.  Why couldn't part of his sentence be to provide legal services to the less fortunate?  Something "useful" to society instead of costing society a small fortune?  

But still, they must have had a reason for not letting that particular guy out.  

bill67 wrote on 12/28/10 at 06:13:44:


I don't know bill.  If it were my sister, then I would probably know the man and I might be able to answer that.  But I am no so naive to say "once a killer, always a killer" after a crime of passion.

O J had the right to kill because it was a crime of passion.

Ok, I understand the disbarrment, but it still seems they could have used his expertise in a beneficial manner... somehow.

His sentence was 20 to life?  And he's already served 20?  Got to a parole hearing.  But its a hearing, not an automatic release.  Somehow a group of people determined it was better for him to stay in.  Just as a group decided that he should be incarcerated for 20 to life.  That's the system.  Yes, I think there should be a happy medium.  But what about setting him free?  He's been in jail for a long time, he's over 60, what would he do?  Would the State still have to assist him?  Still costing money?  

Geez, I'm contradicting myself in my ramblings.  Guess that means I'm a bit torn.  My first thought was let the poor old fella out, let him re-start his life.  But I guess that's just my sympathy talking.  

WH -

Home confinement works for very short term sentences.  But if you really confine one to his home, 24/7, for very long, he won't have a home in which to confine him, since he can't work (remember, 24/7 confinement, like in jail) from home except in very limited circumstances and occupations.