Purpose In the literature, 65 years is commonly used as the age to designate an older person in the community. When studying older prisoners, there is much variation. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how researchers define older offenders and for what reasons. Design/methodology/approach The authors reviewed articles on health and well-being of older offenders to assess terminology used to describe this age group, the chosen age cut-offs distinguishing younger offenders from older offenders, the arguments provided to support this choice as well as the empirical base cited in this context. Findings The findings show that the age cut-off of 50 years and the term “older” were most frequently used by researchers in the field. The authors find eight main arguments given to underscore the use of specific age cut-offs delineating older offenders. They outline the reasoning provided for each argument and evaluate it for its use to define older offenders. Originality/value With this review, it is hoped to stimulate the much-needed discussion advancing towards a uniform definition of the older offender. Such a uniform definition would make future research more comparable and ensure that there is no ambiguity when researchers state that the study population is “older offenders”.

No abstract

The increasing numbers of aging prisoners raise the issue of how they maintain their personal identity and self-esteem in light of long-standing detention. This study sought to answer this question since identity and self-esteem could influence mental and physical health. We conducted a secondary analysis of 35 qualitative interviews that were carried out with older inmates aged 51-75 years (mean age: 61 years) living in 12 Swiss prisons. We identified three main themes that characterized their identity: personal characterization of identity, occupational identity, and social identity. These main themes were divided into sub-themes such as familial network, retirement rights or subjective social position. Personal characterization of identity mostly happened through being part of a network of family and/or friends that supported them during imprisonment and where the prisoner could return to after release. Individual activities and behavior also played an important role for prisoners in defining themselves. Occupational identity was drawn from work that had been carried out either before or during imprisonment although in some cases the obligation to work in prison even after reaching retirement age was seen as a constraint. Social identity came from a role of mentor or counselor for younger inmates, and in a few cases older prisoners compared themselves to other inmates and perceived themselves as being in a higher social position. Identity was often expressed as a mix between positive and negative traits. Building on those elements during incarceration can contribute to better mental health of the individual prisoner which in turn influences the chances for successful rehabilitation.

Switzerland has a unique position among countries permitting some form of assisted dying. However, not all Swiss citizens and institutions are welcoming this fact and have coined the term "suicide tourism" for the phenomenon of foreign residents coming to Switzerland in order to request assisted dying. This reflection shows how the term was created and why it is misleading.

This article describes the Swiss law on advance directives that was passed at the beginning of 2013 and led to more certainty about the legally binding character of such directives. However, for various reasons the drafting of advance directives is not yet widespread in Switzerland, and many resources might be put to better use if this became a common practice. A recent proposal by members of a political party to make the discussion, although not the actual drafting, of advance directives mandatory was rejected by the Swiss Federal Parliament, and the proposal was written off after having been pending for 2 years. We consider that the rejection of this proposal was not justified and that discussion of advance directives should become mandatory, so that individuals can fully assume their role as responsible citizens taking proactive decisions. The decision not to draft advance directives should be a deliberate one, marking a shift from the current "opt-in" approach to an "opt-out" scenario.