I am cautiously supportive primarily due to the chance of a parole board releasing (as they have done) people who will then repeat their terrible crimes on other innocent victims. “Life in prison” should have no alternate meaning.
Locally a man who tortured and killed a young paper boy is periodically up for review of his life sentence and the family has to relive the whole, decades old nightmare.
The same is true of a friend whose wife was sexually attacked by a man who was on parole for a similar crime. She can never have children and I know my friend will kill him if he is ever released — he then would be serving a senound “life sentence” — one for the loss caused by the man and one for killing the son of a bitch.
Some people have NO redeming social value and are a threat to society as long as they live.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 13, 2007 at 3:18 PM
You make it quite clear that one good reason for a strong civil criminal justice system is to protect the accused from the rough hands of vigilante justice, WTH.
I don’t want to give you the idea that I’m soft on criminals, but I believe killing a killer is just a shitting useless empty and totally unsatisfactory compensation for the always horrific losses caused by the mindless self-interested and arrogant indifference for human life of any one of a whole lot of sons of bitches.
Not a few of whom have been men of great wealth and power acting fully within the laws of the state.
I rather do agree with you that there are those amongst our fellow human creatures, many who do exhibit some regular and repeated bottoming out on the social redemption scale.
But just because they have no redeeming value, doesn’t mean that while they are still alive they can never be persuaded to make the effort to acquire it.
Even to the very last man.
Other-wise we are all, though it be in our individual persons the minutest proportion of culpability, qualitively no better than they.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 15, 2007 at 5:59 AM
Hi LB,
I was not talking about those simply “accused.” These two guys were convicted far beyond reasonable doubt.
Keeping them alive with ANY hope of release only maintains them as a danger to others. Wealth and power be damned — anyone like these should be eliminated (in a humane fashion) as we would do with any other animal.
I used to argue for life in prison, but am no longer so naive as to think there is such a thing. I would settle for execution of those who were instrumental in the release of any prisoner who repeats such heinous behavior.
OK? :-)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 15, 2007 at 3:55 PM
“I used to argue for life in prison, but am no longer so naive as to think there is such a thing.”
There is such a thing, WTH.
There are many of those convicted beyond a reasonable doubt who later turn out to be falsely accused.
I have to ask, does being so reflexively cynical really give your own life more meaning, or less?
I think if you were to actually get to know some of these ‘animals’ you are so anxious to ‘eliminate’, you’d find cynicism is something you have in common.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 15, 2007 at 4:27 PM
If you have read the above comments of LB and WTH, and have followed this debate at all in the last 20 years (at least) you realize quite quickly that this is a difficult argument.
Arguments of this caliber don’t seem to offer much grey area since the examples often used in support of it or against tend to be so extreme. This results in often times being forced into an extreme position, either you’re in favor of it or you are not.
I am not in favor of death under any circumstances. If a human being is deemed unfit for life within a society because of a terrible act against humanity, we cannot find justice by committing the same act ourselves.
Posted by rabo12 on Jan 15, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Also featured
PR Watch Has Its Eyes Open
RSS Feed