Rebutting Cortese's head-scratching clemency for elderly SJ prisoners

As another naively idealistic criminal justice bill makes the rounds in CA's Senate, Ruane Attorneys at Law addresses SB 94's key premise: that elderly criminals, even convicted first-degree murders, pose low risk to public safety. Ruane Attorneys clarifies that in general, older convicted offenders—including felons—face more lax consequences, proving that jailbreak opportunities might be more dicey than what Sen. Cortese has planned.

Harsh Sentencing

There are many different opinions on how to reprimand elderly criminal offenders. Opponents of harsh penalties for senior citizens argue that many elderly people have chronic health problems. These should prevent them from having to serve lengthy jail sentences. Proponents of harsh sentencing for older people claim that everyone must equally accept the consequences of their actions under the law. Just because they are older does not mean that they should not accept the consequences of their actions.

Types of Crimes

In general, it appears that when the elderly commit minor crimes, such as shoplifting, prosecutors are more likely to give a minimum punishment. Or, they might dismiss the charges altogether. They are more likely to do this for the elderly than they are for younger adults. For misdemeanor shoplifting and petty theft, elderly offenders consistently receive fines as opposed to jail sentences. In addition, even elderly citizens charged with felonies tend to receive more lenience than younger adults in some states. However, leniency is not the overwhelming rule for all elderly offender cases. In some cases, elderly defendants can get convicted more than younger defendants. Many judges are not more sympathetic to senior citizens based on their age.

This article originally appeared in Ruane Attorneys at Law. Read the whole thing here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity