I don’t understand why. My great grandfather was still strong and breaking horses in his late 80s. I have no doubt that if he was so inclined he could have easily engaged in violent crimes at that age. He was well into his 100s and completely healthy until he suddenly just died without warning. Maybe this person in jail is similar.
Fred Beckey[1] was still climbing mountains, and still going to the extent of traveling to other countries to try to be the first to ascend certain summits via certain routes, well into his late 80's and early 90's. Folk can surprise you, and the type of clemency suggested by the person you're responding to should, IMO, be entirely circumstantial rather than just limited to an age cutoff.
Uhhh from what I saw in dirtbag, he was not doing FAs in his 80s and while he marginally top roped at least once in his 90s, he was definitely struggling and practically had to have the documentary makers carry him to the crag so he could do it
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not in a position to easily skip through the film on YouTube right now), but wasn't that the whole purpose of the international trip he made in Dirtbag? The peak had been summited before, but not via the route he intended to take.
I don't remember the film well enough to say whether he attempted a first ascent in his 80s (I don't think he did), but his last accomplished first ascent was Bomber Lake Arete in 1997 (at the still impressive age of 74). While a first ascent at any age is impressive, and in your 70s even moreso, it would still be an inaccurate claim to say he was making first ascents into his late 70s, let alone late 80s.
>... it would still be an inaccurate claim to say he was making first ascents into his late 70s, let alone late 80s.
Right, which is why I said, "to TRY to be the first to ascend certain summits via certain routes, well into his late 80's and early 90's". I never said he succeeded, just that he was an older gentleman still putting forth as much as he could to accomplish a hefty goal, which happened to be a lot more than most at that age could do.
Edit: https://youtu.be/mc1sqxXSMZ4 at about 9 minutes 20 seconds in, they show him traveling to China at 83 to try to be the first to ascend Haizi Shan.
I hope you’re not really being as absolutist and handwavy of people’s concerns as you appear. There isn’t some age cut off (going up) where you are suddenly incapable of harming others. An 88 year old can commit all sorts of heinous acts.
(1) To physically prevent them from harming the public again.
(2) To discourage them from committing crimes again in the future.
(3) To punish them because punishing criminals is morally just.
Reasons (1) and (2) are what you are thinking of when you say it’s useless to keep an 88-year-old in prison. (3) is your “appeal to morality”. However, there is also:
(4) To discourage others from committing similar crimes.
That last reason is just as important as the others, if not more so.
That's not how psychos like this work in general, you're making it sound like he's a lot more normal than he actually is. This is a good case for the death penalty, because this is the type of person who can't be safely contained and there's no doubt whatsoever about his guilt, given that the kids can be DNA tested and the abnormal levels of relatedness are going to stand out.
I don't know anything about this particular case, I'm just saying that "eligible" shouldn't be disturbing in any situation because it doesn't mean very much.
I agree. I also feel the same way about putting 100 year old Nazis on trial. At this point, it's a total waste of resources that could be used much more productively.
It's not. We don't need to make that statement anymore; it's been made sufficiently. It's putting centenarians in custody for no actual gain to society, just to score political points, and it's disgusting. If it's a statement, it's a statement that "we're willing to waste time and public money to virtue signal, when the problem will take care of itself in a very short amount of time."
What we call justice has generally always involved a mix of deterrence, prevention and punishment for its own sake, ie to be seen as some sort of balancing of the wrong that’s been done. One might not like that idea but judges certainly think about all three aspects when sentencing.
I don't see "throwing 100 year old men who are not currently dangerous to anybody and going to die in a couple of years anyway" anywhere under the definition of "justice" in my dictionary. If anything, I'd expect to see a cross reference to "See: stupid wastes of time and money."
I, for one, would see it as a massive failure of our justice system if we had good evidence that an individual had committed heinous crimes, but then was still allowed to live out the remainder of his life in peace, freedom, and enjoying the company of his family etc. - something he had denied to so many others.
Had you been a victim of a concentration camp or served I the war you might feel differently. I think it’s a bit arrogant of us to decide a crime isn’t appropriate to punish when many of our parents weren’t even alive when the atrocities were committed.