What's the reasoning behind life imprisonment

[Aabidano]

Serious question, I know we've got a number of anti-death penalty folks here. What's your reasoning behind life imprisonment, for this question we're talking cases where there is absolutely no question the person did whatever they did to receive life imprisonment. Life imprisonment itself would seem to be cruel and unusual to me, that's assuming the US prison system was anything approaching safe for it's residents. Which it isn't.

[Sueven]

Protecting society while creating the minimal possible intrusion into individual rights.

Assuming that you think imprisoning someone is a lesser intrusion than killing them.

[Funkmasterr]

Protecting society while creating the minimal possible intrusion into individual rights.

Assuming that you think imprisoning someone is a lesser intrusion than killing them.

How many people that go to max security prisons end up being killed while in jail?? I would say quite a few but I have no solid numbers. I obviously knew maximum security prisons were rough, but I watched a show on prison gangs the other day (the aryan brotherhood, etc) and they are far worse than I thought. The first part of the show was this guy telling a story about how one of the guys he knew in prison actually getting free of his cuffs during transport to a different cell and stabbing the guard moving him like 50 times, then 30 minutes later another guy killed three guards because he didn't want the other dudes kill count to be higher.

When they go to jail for life, they have a good chance of not making it to the end of that term I'd say, and it will probably be a lot more painful and a lot slower death if/when they get killed in jail then the electric chair/lethal injection would be.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Once you murder you gave up your rights to belong to a society. Society can only function if everyone goes by the rules.

[Aslanna]

Once you murder you gave up your rights to belong to a society. Society can only function if everyone goes by the rules.

Unless you're the preseident or his administration. Then just change or ignore the laws as you go. I don't see how society can function in those cases!

[Aabidano]

Unless you're the preseident or his administration. Then just change or ignore the laws as you go. I don't see how society can function in those cases!

Go Winnow-up someone else's thread!

[Funkmasterr]

Once you murder you gave up your rights to belong to a society. Society can only function if everyone goes by the rules.

Unless you're the preseident or his administration. Then just change or ignore the laws as you go. I don't see how society can function in those cases!

Oh please get off it right now, don't derail this into another fucking left wing bush hating thread - there are 5 million to many of those here already.

[Siji]

You first have to understand that the US doesn't send people to jail to rehabilitate them, they send them to jail for revenge (justice).

I never really understood having to support (as a tax payer) criminals and keep them alive for 30-60 years. If someone is undeniably guilty (dna, mass eye witnesses, confession, etc) then what's the point? Either send them to France or kill them.

[Spang]

Oh please get off it right now, don't derail this into another fucking left wing bush hating thread - there are 5 million to many of those here already.

Responding to a derailment will further derail the thread!

[Aslanna]

My statement was not a derailment. It was in direct response to Kilmoll's quote:

Society can only function if everyone goes by the rules.

If the president doesn't follow the rules how can you expect everyone else to? It's all or nothing!

Oh and also.. Revenge and justice are two independent things. You can have one or the other if you so choose. A lot of people like to mix the two and call it one thing.

[Funkmasterr]

You first have to understand that the US doesn't send people to jail to rehabilitate them, they send them to jail for revenge (justice).

I never really understood having to support (as a tax payer) criminals and keep them alive for 30-60 years. If someone is undeniably guilty (dna, mass eye witnesses, confession, etc) then what's the point? Either send them to France or kill them.

Thats downright cruel.


For real though, I agree.

[Winnow]

You first have to understand that the US doesn't send people to jail to rehabilitate them, they send them to jail for revenge (justice).

If you make jail to "cushy" people will murder just to get in there because it would be better than what they have...especially if they're going to receive a free education.

wtf

electrodes to the testes is what's needed in jails with maybe a little slave labor thrown in.

[Truant]

Serious question, I know we've got a number of anti-death penalty folks here. What's your reasoning behind life imprisonment, for this question we're talking cases where there is absolutely no question the person did whatever they did to receive life imprisonment. Life imprisonment itself would seem to be cruel and unusual to me, that's assuming the US prison system was anything approaching safe for it's residents. Which it isn't.

The idea is that our prison system (in theory) reforms criminals. When they serve out their term, they are (in theory) all better, and will continue life on the outside as upstanding citizens. By that line of thinking, life sentences are levied in cases where a person is deemed unreformable. Since they will never be able to safely continue life on the outside, they are kept in prison for the remainder of their life.

[Xatrei]

Protecting society while creating the minimal possible intrusion into individual rights.

Assuming that you think imprisoning someone is a lesser intrusion than killing them.

How many people that go to max security prisons end up being killed while in jail?? I would say quite a few but I have no solid numbers. I obviously knew maximum security prisons were rough, but I watched a show on prison gangs the other day (the aryan brotherhood, etc) and they are far worse than I thought. The first part of the show was this guy telling a story about how one of the guys he knew in prison actually getting free of his cuffs during transport to a different cell and stabbing the guard moving him like 50 times, then 30 minutes later another guy killed three guards because he didn't want the other dudes kill count to be higher.

When they go to jail for life, they have a good chance of not making it to the end of that term I'd say, and it will probably be a lot more painful and a lot slower death if/when they get killed in jail then the electric chair/lethal injection would be.

First, I agree with the reason stated by Sueven. It's simply stated, and I can't really improve upon that. With regard to the notion that prisoners are being killed willy-nilly while improsoned, the facts don't support such a claim. According to info at the DoJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, homicide rates among prisoners are pretty small, and constitute only a tiny fraction of the overall mortality rate among prisoners. This holds true even for violent offenders who are twice as likely to be murdered than a non-violent offender. I'd say that Sueven's reasons hold up pretty well, given that a given inmate is unlikely to die a violent death while incarcerated. Statistically, they're more likely to be the victim of homicide on the streets of a medium to large city.

[Sirensa]

I am pro-death penalty. And a prosecutor. "How do you feel about the death penalty?" is a common interview question when applying for a DA position

[Fairweather Pure]

I am pro-death penalty.

Why?

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Some people need to die. If you kill someone else in cold blood you need to die. If you rape a child (no, not statutory 19 year old has sex with 16 year old or 16 with 13 which should not even be a crime), then you need to die. If you are a true traitor to your country, then you need to die (by traitor I mean in the traditional selling your countries secrets, or helping bring about harm on your country by means of people outside of your country...you know, some of our current administration could fit into this category). Otherwise, you should be given a fair sentence, and release. No life in prison. There is no reason for it. If you do just about any other thing, you should be able to spend some time and leave. But, we have to have at least 1 of the 2. Life in prison or death penalty.

[Aabidano]

Protecting society while creating the minimal possible intrusion into individual rights.

Assuming that you think imprisoning someone is a lesser intrusion than killing them.

In addition to the fact that I think life imprisonment is an inhumane thing to do to a person, there's also the impact to everyone else involved. The family of the victim(s), where there is one. Spreading farther afield the people who have to guard them, and the innocent taxpayers required to support them for the next 4-5 decades. I don't think it's the right thing to do.

I saw the show Funk referred to and have seen a couple others, many of the lifers are insane or absolute animals. In many cases our prison system was a contributor to them being that way. You hear over and over from other lifers, "I wake up every morning hoping this will be the day I die".

I'd propose a 20 year sentence cap for _anything_, and reform\education\work activities in the prisons to give the ex-prisoners a non-criminal route to take after they leave. We shouldn't be punishing starving men for stealing food, we should teach them to farm (don't know where I saw that). Those that show themselves to be un-reformable, after cycling through a system that's meant for reform them should be put to death, or taken out of the picture in some other fashion. 3 strikes and you're really out, and I don't mean possession of weed and things like that. For heinous crimes you get one strike if there aren't mitigating circumstances.

Mandatory life and other long term sentences are only a deterrent for people who wouldn't commit a crime anyway. Additionally they're a politically motivated, pointless form of revenge against the criminals themselves. It's like beating a dog every day for 20 years because he crapped on the rug after you told him not to.

[maglin]

Some people need to die. If you kill someone else in cold blood you need to die. If you rape a child (no, not statutory 19 year old has sex with 16 year old or 16 with 13 which should not even be a crime), then you need to die. If you are a true traitor to your country, then you need to die (by traitor I mean in the traditional selling your countries secrets, or helping bring about harm on your country by means of people outside of your country...you know, some of our current administration could fit into this category). Otherwise, you should be given a fair sentence, and release. No life in prison. There is no reason for it. If you do just about any other thing, you should be able to spend some time and leave. But, we have to have at least 1 of the 2. Life in prison or death penalty.

This sums it it up nicely, some people just need to die.

The assumption that some people are insane because of the prison system is assinine. Bundy, Gacy, Dhalmer etc.... were sociopathic loons long before law enforcement ever new they were suspects.

The issue here is that there are some individuals that you simply can't reform. You either put them to death or you confine them for life. If your anti-death penalty thats fine I can live with that, if your both anti-death penalty and anti-life terms could you imagine the uproar when someone like Dhalmer, McVeigh, Bundy would have been released?

The BTK killer was active for more than 30 years and you'd sentence him to 20 years? Have you considered the possible outcomes to that?

1) A return to the hang em high days and lynch mobs of the 1800s
2) Vigilantism would rise
3) More people would look to prison as a home (this is already happening) some people are willing to trade their freedom to escape their reality.
4) Unreformed killers and rapists on the streets that your children and wives are on. There is already a hyper sense of awareness regarding sex offenders being near schools. So much so that it is infringing upon what I consider my rights to attend functions at the school my daughter attends without having my ID scanned. And you want to add to this?

You can't legislate morality that is true and certain, but you can certainly protect the people that are willing to live within the society from the people that aren't willing to do so when they cross the line. I got no beef with the guy that owns 35 acres and kills deer year round because thats his source of meat, doesn't pay his taxes because the man is out to get him. I consider him a bit weird, but not whacko.

Justice not Law is the answer to a lot of our problems, to many times law has one out where Justice should have been applied. It's truly sad when people are so busy trying to defend the rights of the criminals and forget the victims.

[Aabidano]

The BTK killer was active for more than 30 years and you'd sentence him to 20 years? Have you considered the possible outcomes to that?

Perhaps this wasn't clear:

For heinous crimes you get one strike if there aren't mitigating circumstances.

Most premeditated murders, non-statuatory rapes, etc.. should be an express ticket to a dirt nap.

We've had institutionalized criminals for years, we're training more every day.

[Boogahz]

The assumption that some people are insane because of the prison system is assinine. Bundy, Gacy, Dhalmer etc.... were sociopathic loons long before law enforcement ever new they were suspects.

So, three people who were "sociopathic loons" long before becoming involved with law enforcement are your arguments against the statement that the prison system helps drive some people insane?

[Siji]

The issue here is that there are some individuals that you simply can't reform. You either put them to death or you confine them for life. If your anti-death penalty thats fine I can live with that, if your both anti-death penalty and anti-life terms could you imagine the uproar when someone like Dhalmer, McVeigh, Bundy would have been released?

Case in point, Charles Manson.

There is already a hyper sense of awareness regarding sex offenders being near schools. So much so that it is infringing upon what I consider my rights to attend functions at the school my daughter attends without having my ID scanned.

Uh..

[Lynxe]

Personally I shy away from the death penalty because it involves passing judgment that could result in ending a life which is very final. Obviously guilt has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but not beyond any doubt. Unless you witnessed it personally and were in the brain of the person committing the crime while doing it, everything else is just evidence to build a case and may or may not be accurate or accurately represented. It simply isn't beyond doubt.

I'd be all for the death penalty IF it was fact that they committed the crime. Things are rarely as simple as "that person is a jerk and just decided to shoot someone." We've all heard stories of people who were falsely convicted of crimes. I for one would rather support the guilty in jail if it meant that the one person convicted of a crime he/she didn't commit, lived too.

[MooZilla]

When all is said and done, the total costs of a death-sentence trial and an actual execution are higher than the expenses tied to life-imprisonment.

So what's the motive behind killing a human being in the name of justice? Americans are blood thirsty, and we love to masquerade revenge as justice. An execution is the easy way out for the criminal. As we move towards ensuring that they die a painless, drugged out death it's becoming more and more obvious that the death penalty can be a sweet deal for the fucked up minds that end up in that situation. But the victims families and friends love to watch the killer or rapist die. It's more satisfying than knowing they're locked behind bars indefinitely, which is inarguably a harsher punishment. As an alternative to life imprisonment, I favor hard labor over sitting in a cell for 22 hours a day, but we Americans are "civilized".

I'm against the death penalty. You can't take back an execution when the person is proven innocent afterwards. I read somewhere that about 5% or less of the executions actually killed innocent people. It's easy to feel distanced and say that it doesn't affect you, but imagine being convicted of a crime when you know you're innocent, and then being sentenced to a lethal injection. The United States is one of the few industrialized countries that still uses the death penalty.

[maglin]

There is already a hyper sense of awareness regarding sex offenders being near schools. So much so that it is infringing upon what I consider my rights to attend functions at the school my daughter attends without having my ID scanned.

Uh..[/quote]

Your response is exactly the problem, you seem to assume because I feel strongly about personal freedom and responsibility to the point that I say something, I have something to hide. But, I've got a big problem sacrificing my freedom on the altar of false security. The mood in this county though is if your not willing to prove your clean you are guilty, thus the entire basis of our legal system has become "guilty until proven innocent", its a croc, its not what this country is about and we need to stand up and say that its bull shit.

[maglin]

The assumption that some people are insane because of the prison system is assinine. Bundy, Gacy, Dhalmer etc.... were sociopathic loons long before law enforcement ever new they were suspects.

So, three people who were "sociopathic loons" long before becoming involved with law enforcement are your arguments against the statement that the prison system helps drive some people insane?

I stopped with three prime examples do I need to list scores? Its assinine to think that people were driven insane only AFTER they had committed crimes. Sure, I'm sure it has happened without a doubt but to say its the norm and blame societies ills on the prison system is just silliness. It starts when your 3 years old and learning about what is right and wrong from the role models you have, some people just have extremely poor or no role models whatsoever. Others have legitmate physical problems that manifest at some point in life. Law enforcement is rarely involved with these people before they go beyond what is already socially acceptable.

[Boogahz]

The assumption that some people are insane because of the prison system is assinine. Bundy, Gacy, Dhalmer etc.... were sociopathic loons long before law enforcement ever new they were suspects.

So, three people who were "sociopathic loons" long before becoming involved with law enforcement are your arguments against the statement that the prison system helps drive some people insane?

I stopped with three prime examples do I need to list scores? Its assinine to think that people were driven insane only AFTER they had committed crimes. Sure, I'm sure it has happened without a doubt but to say its the norm and blame societies ills on the prison system is just silliness. It starts when your 3 years old and learning about what is right and wrong from the role models you have, some people just have extremely poor or no role models whatsoever. Others have legitmate physical problems that manifest at some point in life. Law enforcement is rarely involved with these people before they go beyond what is already socially acceptable.

You missed the point of my question. Nobody is arguing that there are not lunatics outside of the prison system. They are saying that the prison system can be responsible for driving some people to a place they would not be had they not been put into the system. I have known a couple people that, once they get out, have degraded into paranoid schizophrenics. They may not have been great "citizens" prior to serving time, but they were nowhere near that nutty before. I also know at least one person that is now on death row in Texas for a murder he admitted to doing, raping a minor, assaulting an elderly family member, and robbing two families within hours of each other. He was insane before he did any of these things. There is no way the people that I know who are out of prison are anywhere near his level of insanity.

[Aabidano]

So what's the motive behind killing a human being in the name of justice? Americans are blood thirsty, and we love to masquerade revenge as justice. An execution is the easy way out for the criminal.

That's the difference in opinion between Sueven's reasoning at the top and mine. To me it's not revenge, but simply the most humane, expedient thing to do. Again, in cases where there is no doubt at all. Those are more frequent than what TV would show us I think.

Would I like to see some of the more brutal criminals slowly and painfully killed? On the one hand yes, from a revenge\karma point of view. Does it serve any purpose? Not really. Unless of course you did it in public and forced the current crop of non-lifers to watch. That would be a graphic and visible deterrent. In reality I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Well, there's a couple exceptions that I won't derail with.

[Noysyrump]

Charley Manson is a revolutionary. They make him seem insane so noone pays attention to him. Unfortunatly, he was probably right.

Why would anyone give a rats ass about the well being or "life imprisonment" or death of a capital offender? They hacked someone into little bits and your worried he might get shanked in prison? fuk it I hope he does.

By the way, its because of a lack of death penalty that the prisons are so dangerouse. Capital offenders are thrown into an environment with other capital offenders who have all proven to be sociopaths. They should all fry so larsonists can do there time in peace.

[Xyun]

Sorry, but I don't buy the liberal position on this issue. First of all it is very inconsistent with the pro-choice position. You can argue the technicalities all day but the bottom line is you are either okay with ending another life or not.

The fact of the matter is some people deserve to be put to death. I agree that it is possible, even probable that a rare number of innocent people may die. But guess what, innocent people die every fucking day for the mistakes of others and you simply cannot prevent every innocent or accidental death. Of course the effort should be made, but murderers should not be spared because of it.

[Boogahz]

What about 13-15 years for Murder? Would you believe it happened in Texas of all states?

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/n ... acedo.html

Killer gets 15 years, over Travis prosecutors' protests
Judge Charlie Baird cites fairness, says other defendant got only 13 years via plea deal.
By Steven Kreytak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, February 13, 2008

After striking a deal the day before that gave Raul Acedo's co-defendant a 13-year prison sentence for murder in the 2006 death of Timothy Neal Shroyer Jr., prosecutors argued Tuesday that Acedo deserved a much harsher fate in the case: 40 years.

Acedo was a frequent methamphetamine user with a prison record whose gun was used to shoot Shroyer near the Austin airport on July 1, 2006, they argued. He admitted running over Shroyer after he was shot and fought police for the gun when they arrested him a day later.

Whether it was Acedo, 30, or co-defendant Robert Brett Hall, 20, who shot the 28-year-old Shroyer, prosecutor John Hunt argued, "Mr. Acedo represents a serious danger to the civilians who are outside these walls."

State District Judge Charlie Baird disagreed and sent Acedo to prison for 15 years. The sentence was the minimum allowed given Acedo's criminal record and came after a spirited give-and-take between prosecutors and the judge.

The sentence was met with disdain by Shroyer's family, who cursed the judge on their way from the courthouse.

"They shot him. They ran him over!" said Mitzi Candelas, Shroyer's sister.

"That's not justice," said Shroyer's father, Timothy Neal Shroyer Sr.

Acedo could have gotten up to life in prison.

Baird noted from the bench that the only evidence of who did the shooting came from Acedo, who pinned it on Hall, and from a friend of Hall's, who said Hall took credit for the shooting. Baird asked whether giving Acedo a significantly longer sentence would be unfair.

"It floors me to how you could think this is worth 40 years," Baird told Hunt, "when you yourself put the value on the case yesterday to 13 years."

The case against Hall was resolved with a plea bargain the day of trial. Prosecutors said they agreed to the light sentence because of "proof issues." One problem was Acedo's refusal to testify against Hall, they said.

Acedo pleaded guilty to murder in August without a plea deal, leaving the sentencing up to Baird.

After his arrest, Acedo cooperated with police, homicide Detective Richard Faithful testified, leading them to a Wal-Mart in Marble Falls where they dumped a tooth of Shroyer's nearby and he and Hall bought more bullets.

But prosecutors noted that Acedo failed to mention the shooting of another man at a North Austin Exxon station the day Shroyer was killed. Acedo pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a 12-year sentence, which is to run at the same time as the murder sentence. That man has recovered from his injuries.

A friend of Acedo and Shroyer's testified that the pair had a long-standing beef that could have involved methamphetamine, which the two regularly used and Acedo sometimes sold. Acedo once gave the friend a bullet to give to Shroyer as a warning, she said.

"Mr. Acedo," prosecutor Gregg Cox said, "could have turned this madness off at any time."

[Zaelath]

But prosecutors noted that Acedo failed to mention the shooting of another man at a North Austin Exxon station the day Shroyer was killed. Acedo pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a 12-year sentence, which is to run at the same time as the murder sentence. That man has recovered from his injuries.

If the DA offers up a 13 year plea deal to the only person that has evidence against them, it seems like this bloke got 15 years too many. Even the prosecutor doesn't seem sure who shot anyone.

That said, I don't understand concurrent sentences; how can you get 15 years and 12 years and serve them both at the same time? Do they give you two cell mates prone to arse rape instead of one?

[Boogahz]

But prosecutors noted that Acedo failed to mention the shooting of another man at a North Austin Exxon station the day Shroyer was killed. Acedo pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a 12-year sentence, which is to run at the same time as the murder sentence. That man has recovered from his injuries.

If the DA offers up a 13 year plea deal to the only person that has evidence against them, it seems like this bloke got 15 years too many. Even the prosecutor doesn't seem sure who shot anyone.

That said, I don't understand concurrent sentences; how can you get 15 years and 12 years and serve them both at the same time? Do they give you two cell mates prone to arse rape instead of one?

The whole thing just seemed screwed up to me. Especially in Texas!

[Dregor Thule]

While I do feel that there are some that truly deserve to die, I don't trust in human fallibility or any justice system to mete out a death penalty judgment without error. And chalking those errors up as acceptable losses isn't an answer unless you're willing to then execute the prosecutor, jury, judge, and anyone else who had a hand in murdering said innocent person to enforce some kind of accountability. If you want an eye for an eye it should go all the way.

And trying to liken abortion to the death penalty, well.. I think you'd better check your ass for a fresh elephant tattoo.

[Ashur]

I'm with Xyun on this one (oh my god, did I say that?), you're either OK with making the decision to end a life or not. The typical conservative (pro "life" & pro death penalty) and liberal (pro "choice" and anti death penalty) stances never made any fucking sense to me as they are not congruent with each other.

I'm in the pro death (when it makes sense) camp.

[Sueven]

I generally agree with Ashur and Xyun, although I think it is possible to reasonably hold opposing views.

I also generally agree with Dregor's point that, while I've got nothing against capital punishment, I do have some problems with how capital punishment is implemented in our country. I think it's reasonable to be entirely pro-choice and pro-capital punishment in principle, but anti-capital punishment in practice.

[Ashur]

Yes, for it in principle, but reservations about how it's implemented.