Unwise Use of Mercy

In Mercy at the End of a Life, by the editorial board of The New York Times, published on Oct 2, 2013, the editors attempt to answer the question of whether or not a dying or elderly prisoners, who pose no threat to the public, may be released.

The American Public is the intended audience for this attention grabbing editorial. The authors are credible because of their use of Attorney General Eric Holder Jr’s speech given at the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association's House of Delegates. The authors also use data from the Human Rights Watch. I believe their indirect argument is not to release the kinds of prisoners in question. Their argument is logical and provides compelling evidence.

When I read this editorial, I paid particular attention to the words “pose no threat to the public” and “elderly and dying prisoners.” I agree that they should not be released just because they are dying or are elderly. My reasons are: just because they are old, it does not mean that they are not capable of committing crimes. And, in today’s society, we are seeing a growing number of criminals over the age of 60. This fact is living proof of the kind of world we leave in today, not perfect (obviously), or mildly screwed up but rather completely screwed up. If they are sick, they may be taken to the hospital for treatment but I disagree with letting them loose on the grounds that they are sick and may die in prison. For example “Herman Wallace, a 71-year-old man who spent more than 40 years in solitary confinement conditions for the murder of a prison guard was released on Tuesday because of advanced liver cancer” (New York Times Editorial Board). His age and health should have not played a role in whether or not he was released. On contrary, results of psychiatric tests determining whether or not he had changed or was remorseful of his crime after spending more than 40 years in solitary confinement should have played a role in his release.