Advertisement

Justice System Response to Elderly Criminality

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
Chapter

Abstract

Violators of the criminal laws can be found in all age categories, including those defined as elderly offenders (65 and older). Older offenders have been convicted of almost all of the same types of crimes as those in other age categories, including violent crimes, such as murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault; property crimes, such as theft, destruction of property, and fraud; and crimes generally associated with organized crime or white-collar crime, such as extortion, money laundering, bribery, and corruption as well as being convicted of public order crimes, such as public intoxication and loitering. The severity of the crimes of the older offenders ranges from the most serious felony crime, such as aggravated murder, to minor misdemeanor crimes, such as petty theft. Many, perhaps the majority of older offenders, are situational offenders, while others are considered chronic or habitual offenders.

Determining the appropriate criminal justice response for the older criminal offender is often difficult. In this chapter, various responses of the justice system to older offenders are considered, based on the specific situational factors of the older offenders and their special needs. If the offender has mental health of substance abuse problems, the needs of both the older offender and the community can best be served by participation in a diversion program. The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) designed to assess the appropriate response for those offenders with special needs is presented in this chapter. The procedures and programs of drug courts and mental health courts are also presented. Community-based supervision and treatment options such as probation, parole, and community residential treatment are considered in reference to their application to the older offender. The chapter concludes with a discussion of programs designed for the needs of older offenders sentenced to long-term secure correctional facilities.

Keywords

Diversion Mental Health Courts Drug Courts Sentencing Options Recidivism Desistance Sequential Intercept Model 

References

  1. Aday, R., & Krabill, J. (2006). Aging offenders in the criminal justice system. Marquette Elder’s Advisor, 7(2), 238–258.Google Scholar
  2. American law enforcement and mental health project. (2000). Retrieved October 16, 2016, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/51865
  3. Bratina, M. (2017). Forensic mental health: Framing integrated solutions. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  4. Bronson, J., & Maruschak, L. (2015). Disabilities among prison and jail inmates, 2011-12 (pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Prisons. (2017). BOP statistics: Average inmate age, pp. 1–2. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from https://www.bop.gov/aboutstatistics_inmate_age.jsp
  6. Cadue, C. (2016). Overview: Larned correctional mental health facility. Kansas Department of Corrections. Retrieved June 29, 2017, from https://www.doc.ks.gov/facilities/icmhf/overview-1
  7. Carlson, E. (2015). Prisoners in 2014 (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, P. (2011). Managing the mentally ill from a correctional administrator’s perspective. In T. Fagan & R. Ax (Eds.), Correctional mental health: From theory to best practice (pp. 52–75). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Center of State Government. (2016). The stepping up initiative. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from https://www.Stepuptogether.org/
  10. Clements, C., McKee, J., & Jones, S. (2010). Offender needs and assessment: Models and approaches. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Grant + EQ-8.Google Scholar
  11. Fattah, E., & Sacco, V. (1989). Crimes and victimization of the elderly. Springer: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Crime in America. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2017). Federal Medical Center: Forth Worth, pp. 1–2. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/fw
  14. Hartwell, S., Deng, X., Fisher, W., Siegfreidt, J., Roy-Bujnowski, K., Johnson, C., et al. (2013). Predictors of accessing substance abuse services among individuals with mental disorders released from correctional custody. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 9(1), 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaeble, D., & Bonczar, T. (2016). Probation and parole in the United States: 2015 Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://www.bjs.gov//index.cfm?ty=pbdetail8jd=5784
  16. Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014 (pp. 1–5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Revised 1/21/2016.Google Scholar
  17. Kratcoski, P. (1994). Older inmates: Special programming concerns. In P. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (3rd ed., pp. 505–518). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc..Google Scholar
  18. Kratcoski, P. (2017). Correctional counseling and treatment (6th ed.). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kratcoski, P., & Dahlgren, D. (2004). The CHANGE program: An assessment of a drug court. In P. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (5th ed., pp. 596–613). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc..Google Scholar
  20. Kratcoski, P., & Edelbacher, M. (2016). Trends the criminality and victimization of the elderly. Fereral probation, 80(1), 58–63.Google Scholar
  21. Kratcoski, P., & Pownall, G. (1989). Federal Bureau of Prisons programming for older inmates. Federal probation, 53(2), 28–35.Google Scholar
  22. Krstcoski, P. (2004). Older inmates: Special programming concerns. In P. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (5th ed., pp. 558–595). IL, Waveland Press, Inc.: Long Grove.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, C., Cheesman, F., Rottman, D., Swaner, R., Lambon, S., Rempel, M., et al. (2009). A community court grows in Brooklyn: A comprehensive evaluation of the red hook community justice center (Executive summary). Williamburg: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
  24. Mental Health America. (2015). Position statement 56: Mental health treatment in correctional facilities. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/positions/correctional-facility-treatment
  25. Michigan Department of Corrections. (2017). Mental health services. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0.4551,7-119-68854_9744_-00.html
  26. Munetz, M., & Griffin, P. (2006). Use of the Sequential Intercept Model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57(4), 544–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Odegaard, A. (2007). Therapeutic jurisprudence: The impact of mental health courts on the criminal justice system. North Dakota Law Review, 81(1), 225–259.Google Scholar
  28. Oriana House Home Page. ( 2016). Oriana house. Retrieved July 12, 2016, from http://www.facebook.com/orianahousercruitment/infro/entry-point-new-about-item+tab+new-aboutitems&tab&page-info
  29. Ostrmann, M., & Matejowkowski, J. (2014). Exploring the intersection of mental illness and release status with recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 746–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rowland, M. (2016). Assessing the case for formal recognition and expansion of federal problem-solving courts. Federal Probation, 80(3), 3–14.Google Scholar
  31. Scherer, R., (2009). Jail diversion programs for those with mental illness: An emphasis on pre-booking diversion and other early diversion models. Accessed June 14, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.mhae.org/pdf/Jail%20diversion%20information.pdf.
  32. Seewer, J. (2017). Ohio death row move to Toledo is put on hold. Akron Beacon Journal (Tuesday, July 4, B4).Google Scholar
  33. Shockley, B. (2010). Protecting due process from the Protect Act: The problem with increasing periods of supervised release for sexual offenders. Washington and Lee Law Review, 67, 353–399.Google Scholar
  34. The PEW Center of the States. (2011). Risks/needs assessment101: Science reveals new tools to manage offenders (pp. 1–8). Retrieved June 20, 2017, from http://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs-assets/2011pewuskassessmentbriefpdf.pdf
  35. Thompson, C. (2017). Buffalo introduces court for opioids. Akron Beacon Journal, A6.Google Scholar
  36. Vinyard, N. (2016). Extralegal factors and the imposition of lifetime supervised release for child pornography offenders. Federal Probation, 80(1), 45–57.Google Scholar
  37. Vito, G., & Wilson, D. (1985). Forgotten people: Elderly inmates. Federal probation, 49(1), 18–24.Google Scholar
  38. Waresmith, S. (2017). New Day Court blazes new trial. Akron Beacon Journal (Monday, June 5, A1&A8).Google Scholar
  39. Warsmith, S. (2017). Summit seeks second drug court. Akron Beacon Journal (Wednesday, June 28, A1&A6).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations