I don't think the bit about "legally blind" means jack shit. He was able to perform stand up just last year at a club, so even if his vision is greatly reduced, he's not rotting away in a chair by the fire.
Any mitigation of justice based on a criminal's infirmity is a miscarriage of justice. Conviction & sentencing isn't about reaching a level of impairment or suffering to suffice for the crime. It's about incarceration as punishment for the culpable transgression of law, which in turn is the violation of serious social mores.
"Your Honor, the defendant, through his own neglect admittedly, is suffering from almost complete loss of his teeth. The Defense appeals for leniency in sentencing even though the Court has found him guilty of embezzlement of the $23 million fund."
"So, despite intentionally and illegally driving to the bar and becoming fully intoxicated before killing the couple who were walking alongside the road, the defendant has a chronic disease of the pancreas and probably only has a decade to live."
Rape is rape. If it means a prisoner will die in jail blind, or of pancreatic disease, it has nothing to do with justice or injustice. Crime and punishment is about social enforcement of the agreed upon codes of law. There is no valid basis for "yeah, he raped them all, but he's old now so it's not a problem."
It's frankly embarrassing to see lawyers shamelessly use these PR campaigns to try to sway judges, juries, and public opinion.
One of my best friends from youth was bitter about his father going to prison for a DWI where he drove home drunk and the truck left the road and killed a young woman walking. He went the next day to have the truck repaired and repainted on the sly to try to cover up the hit and run. He was in his 60's probably when he did it. He later developed cancer and I believe was let out early to die. My friend never even accepted that his father deserved prison.
Mercy needs a heavily compelling reason to mitigate justice.