Life without parole should not mean life until the prisoner becomes sick.
Compassionate release is a policy that permits dying prisoners to apply for release before their sentences have been fully served. I have no problem with it in particular cases, but a JAMA article argues that law enforcement authorities don’t release enough ill prisoners and urges that the decision instead be made by doctors.
From “Compassionate Release Reform–Moving Medical Parole to Medical Professionals“:
From a justice perspective, the initial conviction is often used as justification to refuse thousands of eligible applicants. Although some may argue that it would be unfair to shorten a sentence simply for the end of life, this sentiment is misguided. US sentencing practices far exceed any peer nation, and many of those who apply for medical parole have spent several decades behind bars already. These individuals have endured chronic stress, poor environmental conditions, and limited medical services that ultimately cause accelerated aging, leading to advanced illness at significantly younger ages than community peers.
Based on the excessive sympathy the authors show toward people who have committed horrible crimes — who are the ones primarily incarcerated for very long terms — I say no.
The authors complain that parole boards might be biased against criminals:
Since current medical parole decisions are made by parole boards and corrections commissioners, there is a potential for bias to refuse petitions due to fear of public backlash if recidivism does occur. This fear has seen regular parole rates plummeting across the country, leading to many who were not sentenced to death nevertheless dying while incarcerated.
Let the medical experts decide, they argue:
We propose that compassionate release evaluations be done by an external medical review board rather than actors within the criminal-legal system. This would allow decisions to be made explicitly on medical criteria and in an expedited fashion. Efficient processing of eligible applications is critical because each year, individuals die in prison awaiting a decision. This board would be composed of health care professionals, including those with expertise in palliative care, geriatrics, psychiatry, and general medicine. . . . Although a hybrid approach, such as adding a medical professional to a traditional parole board, may be considered more feasible, we believe that continued involvement of political appointees with backgrounds in policing, prosecution, and prisons in medical parole would maintain its punitive, risk-averse approach.
But medical criteria should not be the only factor. The nature of the crime and the sentence should be, too, as well as the opinions of the victims.
The authors seem to downplay the debt owed by convicted criminals to society:
We recommend referring any individual who is incarcerated who meets medical criteria to the board, rather than excluding people by type of conviction or sentence. By choosing compassion for those nearing the end of their lives, we can better define justice by reorienting our punitive lens toward one of care and repair…
The continued incarceration of patients with terminal illness is hard to justify from a financial or public safety perspective and raises ethical concerns. As a society, we must reckon with how an ever-increasing number of patients with severe illness are condemned to die in prison. The money spent comes at tremendous opportunity and moral cost. As physicians, we remain steadfast in a belief that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to die with dignity and recognize any death in prison as a policy failure. We can, and must, imagine a more just future for all patients.
Sometimes dying in prison is what justice requires. If the authors get their way, I fear that compassionate release will become a rubber stamp, and life without parole will be life until the convict becomes sick.