The Cost and Overuse of Life Sentences
Surprisingly, Indiana has the most individuals serving life sentences in the nation, according to statistics from Recording Law.
Some are virtual life sentences of 50 years or more, others serve life sentences without parole, and some may earn parole at an unspecified later date. Of course, Indiana is not alone. All states and the Federal government enforce death sentencing laws of one kind or another.
But lately there are many in Indiana who are pushing for “passionate release” of elderly and terminally ill prisoners. Sounds reasonable, however undoing the decisions of judges and juries is a legislative puzzle that has yet to be dealt with. So right now, we are stuck with an overload of elderly people, serving life sentences, that are about as dangerous as the neighborhood cat.
According to PrisonPolicy.org, in only 14 years, the aged prison population (fueled by life sentences) increased by 234% in the U.S. and a 2024 report by the Sentencing Project in the U.S. found the number of those serving life without parole had ballooned to around 195,000. The fact that we continue to imprison people who are 70 or 80 years old—far past the likelihood of returning to a life of crime—is an affront to common sense as much as it is to Judeo-Christian values. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that people released at age 65 or older are the least likely of any age group to be re-arrested in the five years following release.
Meanwhile, the cost of incarcerating people has skyrocketed. A report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that it costs three times as much money to incarcerate an older person than someone of any other age group, close to $70,000 per year. In Indiana alone the cost of our prisons is over a billion dollars, and you’re paying the tab. We decry the cost of incarceration in our state but look askance at remedies to reduce it. Clearly, the first and easiest way is to reduce the prison population, starting with people who are judged not to be a danger to society.
Also, we should not limit releases to the terminally ill. While illness and incapacity certainly is part of the equation, we also must acknowledge that people change. The person who committed a crime in 1984 is not the same person that we still incarcerate after 40 years. Judges and juries determined many of these extreme sentences in the wake of the 80s crime boom, when society was demanding its pound of flesh, but at some point has the sentence done its job?
By spending less on housing septuagenarians, perhaps we could increase mental health services in our prisons and do more to restore people to better prepare them for a happy, successful life. Certainly, every aging felon is not necessarily a good candidate for release, but the criminal legal system’s dependency and over use of life sentences disregards the overwhelming research showing that extreme sentences are not an effective public safety solution. So, maybe judges could put the brakes on the life sentences here a little bit? Maybe money could be saved by having fewer incarcerated 80-year-olds, and devote more money to drug abatement and mental health care?
Maybe. But for now, we need a state-wide review of prison inmates over the age of 65 or 70, and let’s start with the most reasonable question: Are they still a danger to society?
Nancy
