The nature of the Glenn Neasham case presents a problem. There are laws that prohibit any form of discrimination due to race, color, religion … and age. So unless someone is determined by law to not be competent, vendors are forced to do business with everyone, regardless of age.

The reality is that many older people have lost  some or much of their faculties, but can still legally make decisions for themselves due to insufficient family intervention or other factors. So in some cases it can be “damned of you do, damned if you don't.”

If Neasham said, “No, you are old and seem to my untrained eye to not be able to make a sound decision,” he could have been held to violating a myriad of anti-discrimination laws.

If a vendor does business with the elderly, and they choose a product that others may deem inappropriate, then the vendor may be accused of taking advantage of the elderly, or abusing them, as with what happened with Neasham.

The Neasham verdict, if it stands, will send a chill out to all businesses who cater to the elderly: Sell to the elderly, go to jail. Don't sell to the elderly, go to jail.     

How is your typical business person, untrained in the science of mental degeneration, going to be able to make the right call in every case regarding a persons mental state?

It puts an impossible burden on the vendor to determine whether the elderly client is of sound mind or not, and if they make the wrong call either way, they face losing everything, including their liberty.  

With so much risk related to having elderly clients, who in their right mind will still want to work with them? Could this effort to protect the elderly actually do more harm than good?

I was not at the trial, and I got most of my information from the local news, so I am in no position to say if the verdict was right or not. But the papers reported on some disconcerting elements, including possible jury misconduct, the report that the alleged victim's investment made her over $40,000 and the prosecution allegedly withholding an audio recording of the victim taken soon after the incident until  nearly the end of the trial.  

These reports made me wonder if there was overzealous prosecution. There has to be more clear-cut examples of elder abuse out there that should be dealt with, and the possibility that Neasham was railroaded should be considered by all fair minded people.

Perhaps he is guilty and he is getting what he deserves. But from my limited perspective, this looks more like a travesty of justice and a warning to everyone who treasures a fair and just due process.

Phil Smoley lives in Lakeport, Calif.