This is why in Norway the maximum sentence is 21 years. This sentence can be extended if the person is thought to still pose a danger to society.
The difference between a sentence that invalidates people's entire lives and giving them a future is part of what makes that system so ludicrously successful by every metric.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;41378662]I have no issue with someone spending the rest of their life prison if it is determined that they are still a danger to society. The problem with the current system in this country, as indicated by this case, is that someone who has been given a whole life sentenced has no chance of a review. Locking someone up and throwing away the key is a terrible way of dealing with any sort of criminal.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Prison should be to rehabilitate first, to punish second. I am fine with life in prison being given as sentence, but life in prison without parole is inhumane - you are essentially saying that they are worthless as human beings, and will never amount to anything.
Life imprisonment is fine for murderers and the like, but there should be a right to parole for if they are genuinely rehabilitated and cease to be threats to the public. After all, locking them up with no chance to out gives them no point to improve - they'll remain bolted up in a prison. Give them the possibility of freedom, and the means to improve themselves, and any reasonable one of them will start contemplating his actions and trying to find a way to integrate into society.
Sure there'll be the one or two oddballs who remain threats to society, but they'll fail their parole hearings and the like, and will just stay locked up.
I don't really see a problem with this. They don't have to release them, they just need to review them again after 25 years. It doesn't stop people serving life sentences.
So if I kill a large amount of people like Anders Brevick or Adolph Hitler I shouldn't be in prison for life? Ok Europe.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;41378388]In my opinion: If you've taken a life, or multiple lives, you have essentially voided all of your Human Rights.[/QUOTE]
That's my opinion too, If you have ended somebodies else life, you are "stripped" of some of your rights. Although you have to consider, if such a strip should happen, there would have to be complete certainty that it is the killer, and did it while being sane, clean and with premeditation. The thing is, it's not every human right, you can't treat a human like an animal, so to say, even if they are monsters. By being human, such as us, they deserve and will always have certain rights, those rights do not include being treated with grace or mercy.
It's a lot more complex than just such a rule, although the idea in itself is fair.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;41378420]The funny thing is, the man who complained and said it was inhumane, was the man who killed 5 of his family members[/QUOTE]
...Yeah, I don't think he's one to be listened to...
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41378920]So if I kill a large amount of people like Anders Brevick or Adolph Hitler I shouldn't be in prison for life? Ok Europe.[/QUOTE]
don't strawman
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41378920]So if I kill a large amount of people like Anders Brevick or Adolph Hitler I shouldn't be in prison for life? Ok Europe.[/QUOTE]
If you've killed that many people, you'll likely be insane enough that you'll never pass parole reviews, and will be kept in.
They're saying that life without parole is a breach of human rights, not life imprisonment itself.
Basically, lock 'em up for 25 years, check to find out they're still not fit to be sent back into society, repeat.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41378920]So if I kill a large amount of people like Anders Brevick or Adolph Hitler I shouldn't be in prison for life? Ok Europe.[/QUOTE]
because that is exactly what they're saying isn't it :rolleye:
[QUOTE=Terminutter;41378991]If you've killed that many people, you'll likely be insane enough that you'll never pass parole reviews, and will be kept in.
They're saying that life without parole is a breach of human rights, not life imprisonment itself.
Basically, lock 'em up for 25 years, check to find out they're still not fit to be sent back into society, repeat.[/QUOTE]
How do you check if they're safe for the public or not? Locking someone in a cell for 25 years doesn't suddenly make them fine, you obviously have something wrong with you to kill five of your family members
[QUOTE=AK'z;41378640]There should be an unmaintained island where these people can be placed.
Bring them back to the sheer basics of being a human being rather than cage them to their own selves where they aren't even able to help themselves to function any real kind of life.[/QUOTE]
Read up on Australia.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;41379087]How do you check if they're safe for the public or not? Locking someone in a cell for 25 years doesn't suddenly make them fine, you obviously have something wrong with you to kill five of your family members[/QUOTE]
Psych evals every fortnight / month and the like throughout their sentence, counselling, lessons teaching both life skills such as cooking and educational lessons like the sciences.
This is in the ideal world though, where rehabilitation and reaffirming that everyone is human is done, instead of "lock 'em up and throw away the key". Ideally they'd be in a place where mingling and social interactions are emphasized and encouraged, like you'd seen in the Scandinavian countries. Guards should be friendly instead of distanced. You're not going to want to shank someone who's being nice to you, you'll emphasise with him.
Isn't a life sentance 20 years rather than an actual life? Nothing wrong with that.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;41379087]How do you check if they're safe for the public or not? Locking someone in a cell for 25 years doesn't suddenly make them fine, you obviously have something wrong with you to kill five of your family members[/QUOTE]
Rehabilitation is a process, not popping in to see if they're dangerous every now and then.
Human rights are conventional anyway. We can change them as we please. They aren't some objective component of nature that everyone needs to adhere to. For example, the US constitution recognizes that slavery is illegal unless the person is a convicted criminal. ("Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.")
Society gives human rights and also has the right to take them away.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41379336]Human rights are conventional anyway. We can change them as we please. They aren't some objective component of nature that everyone needs to adhere to.[/QUOTE]
and? that doesn't mean they [I]shouldn't[/I] be adhered to
[editline]9th July 2013[/editline]
if you're going to do that then let's just abolish human rights all together
I disagree. Execution? Sure, inhumane, no contest from me. Life sentences, however? I'm sorry, but I don't see any other options. There are people who simply pose too big of a risk to the safety of others to place back into society, people who are beyond rehabilitation. If we cannot fix them, and we cannot contain them, then what else can we do?
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41379416]and? that doesn't mean they [I]shouldn't[/I] be adhered to
[editline]9th July 2013[/editline]
if you're going to do that then let's just abolish human rights all together[/QUOTE]
People have made the argument that we can't have life sentences because it goes against human rights, but that isn't a relevant argument if human rights aren't objective and permanent.
There's nothing illogical to say we can take away what we've given.
You are also making a false choice. There is a middle ground between having every human right we have now and having no human rights.
I personally don't have an issue with someone getting a life sentence if they have committed murder or rape. Obviously that person has already lost it to want to do something like that.
I have no sympathy for those type of people. To walk up to someone and shoot them or tie an innocent down and rape; there's no rehibiliation from that. Life sentences are fine by me if those are the cases.
I don't like prisons or the way they are now. Being in the same place with thousands of other criminals doesn't seem the best way to rehabilitate someone I feel.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41379479]People have made the argument that we can't have life sentences because it goes against human rights, but that isn't a relevant argument if human rights aren't objective and permanent.
There's nothing illogical to say we can take away what we've given.
You are also making a false choice. There is a middle ground between having every human right we have now and having no human rights.[/QUOTE]
actually the complete opposite of what I was trying to say
you're saying rights [I]can[/I] be followed, I'm saying they [I]should[/I]
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41379548]actually the complete opposite of what I was trying to say
you're saying rights [I]can[/I] be followed, I'm saying they [I]should[/I][/QUOTE]
... and I'm asking: "Which rights?" Also, why should they all be followed without question?
My argument is that the rights you are talking about are a construct of society. These rights have been given to people and therefore can also be taken away. To say rights should never, under any circumstances, be taken away is to say society is perfect at creating rights, which is obviously not the case.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41379461]I disagree. Execution? Sure, inhumane, no contest from me. Life sentences, however? I'm sorry, but I don't see any other options. There are people who simply pose too big of a risk to the safety of others to place back into society, people who are beyond rehabilitation. If we cannot fix them, and we cannot contain them, then what else can we do?[/QUOTE]
how do you decide if you can rehabilitate someone or not?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379594]how do you decide if you can rehabilitate someone or not?[/QUOTE]
Ask a psychiatrist; I'm just some schmuck on the internet.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41379575]... and I'm asking: "Which rights?" Also, why should they all be followed without question?
My argument is that the rights you are talking about are a construct of society. These rights have been given to people and therefore can also be taken away.[/QUOTE]
oh my god I understand that they can be taken away
I literally just said they SHOULDN'T BE. you're trying to justify the removal of the human rights that the people agreed on from what it sounds like
[QUOTE=sgman91;41379575]... and I'm asking: "Which rights?" Also, why should they all be followed without question?
My argument is that the rights you are talking about are a construct of society. These rights have been given to people and therefore can also be taken away. To say rights should never, under any circumstances, be taken away is to say society is perfect at creating rights, which is obviously not the case.[/QUOTE]
the whole idea of human rights and natural rights are that they are things most any human being can do in the absence of any authority or restriction. when using that idea of rights, it becomes clear that society does not grant anyone rights, it can only take rights away.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379632]the whole idea of human rights and natural rights are that they are things most any human being can do in the absence of any authority or restriction. when using that idea of rights, it becomes clear that society does not grant anyone rights, it can only take rights away.[/QUOTE]
I understand what natural rights are, in theory, but that doesn't mean that is the truth. I see no place for natural rights outside of religion. Any argument in favor of natural right makes so many unfounded assumptions that the entire argument falls apart. I've read "Natural Rights and History" by Leo Strauss for example and found his argument not compelling at all.
Human rights, as an idea, are completely meaningless outside of a society that chooses which ones to enforce.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;41378948]don't strawman[/QUOTE]
There are people like that who will never be able to atone for their crimes. I don't believe rehabilitation is the only part of the justice system. Punishment is also an important factor.
Its not like they won't be able to get out if proven innocent.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41379614]Ask a psychiatrist; I'm just some schmuck on the internet.[/QUOTE]
if psychiatrists knew how to accurately predict whether someone incarcerated would commit a crime again in the future or not, then i would hope our prison system wouldn't be so fucked up.
my point is that unless you have a method to tell whether someone will be a repeat offender, you have to make an assumption. either you assume the person will be, or won't be. i don't really think there is anyone out there who should be allowed to make that assumption.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41379690]There are people like that who will never be able to atone for their crimes. I don't believe rehabilitation is the only part of the justice system. Punishment is also an important factor.
Its not like they won't be able to get out if proven innocent.[/QUOTE]
the two are pretty much opposites of eachother. you can't 'believe' in both
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
