Life means (not) life

[Crackpot]

That makes as much sense as saying earthquakes terrorist attacks etc.. Are part of gods plan

[Big RR]

Joe--I agree that some people may not ever be able to be rehabilitated, but I also think that others can. Can a murderer be rehabilitated? How about a person who kills someone who molests his child; I would think (s)he could be. What I object to is the tying of our hands by sentences such as LWOP; by all means set measurable standards for release and make sure the parole boards enforce them, but let's trust ourselves enough to make the difficult choices rather than having our hands tied. It could well be that few, if any, are ever released because they don't meet the standards and that would be fine.

[Scooter]

That makes as much sense as saying earthquakes terrorist attacks etc.. Are part of gods plan

I didn't say the murders the guy committed were part of God's plan.

In some cases God's plan is for someone to be put to death or be imprisoned for life without parole.

Perhaps it is. But how would you know when it isn't if you don't allow for that chance?

No.

So you believe your bloodlust takes precedence over whatever plan God might have. Interesting.

[dales]

We live in a fallen world.

God's perfect foreknowledge realizes this.

[Sue U]

Jim--I guess it depends what you see as the ultimate goal of the prison system--removing people from society (so they can hurt no one else), punishment, or rehabilitation. If it's the latter (and many societies claim that it is), then periodic review of a sentence and the prisoner's progress toward rehabilitation makes sense. No one, including Ms. Lyon whom you quote, is recommending that un-rehabilitated criminals be released, only that their progress should be periodically reviewed. If not, then it belies the statement that we are dedicated to rehabilitation, a position which is endorsed by the EU.

IMHO, it's a debate worth having, so that a society may understand how its criminal justice system works; paying lip service to rehabilitation while endorsing LWOP, seems to be inconsistent, unless, perhaps, we say some crimes are so heinous that rehabilitation is impossible and that imprisonment of the offenders for their entire lives is the nly way society can protect itself. But I do think we should be true to ourselves about what we believe.

What he said there.

[dgs49]

For What It's Worth, a true story.

A childhood neighbor of mine ("Robbie"), product of a good family (older brother is Rhodes Scholar and novelist, John Edgar Wideman), turned the other way in early adulthood. With an accomplice, he arranged to swindle a car dealer out of $500 by promising him a truckload of stolen TV's, intending to beat him up (if necessary) and take the $500 purchase price. Robbie was the get-away driver. During the transaction, Robbie remained in the car, and his accomplice ended up accidentally shooting the victim in the leg as they fought over the gun. The victim was taken to the hospital.

Victim was negligently left to bleed out in the Emergency Room. His family later won a judgement for wrongful death against the hospital. But Robbie was an "Accessory-before-the-fact" in a robbery in which the victim died. Felony-murder. Although he got a determinate sentence, it is essentially LWOP.

All this happened in, I think, 1971 or so. Robbie has been in prison ever since. Masters degree. Model prisoner. Supportive family. There are legal and constitutional issues in Pennsylvania that make his prospects worse than they otherwise might be, but I have been personally told by the administrate clerk of the Parole Board that Robbie will die in prison. The hurdles to get him out are insurmountable, and include a required UNANIMOUS recommendation for clemency by the Parole Board to the Governor, which has never happened.

It is not too much to ask that eternal sentences be reviewed from time to time, to make sure they are sane (the decision, not the prisoner).

[Andrew D]

How should we treat crazy people?

According to a report by the Bush-administration Department of Justice:

--> More than half of people incarcerated in State prisons had mental-health problems;

--> Almost half of people incarcerated in federal prisons had mental-health problems; and

--> Almost two thirds of people incarcerated in local jails had mental health problems.

Of course, not all people with mental-health problems are truly crazy. But many are.

So how should we deal with those people?

[dales]

And there are many with "mental health problems" (whatever that means) running loose on the streets.

Of course, not all people with mental-health problems are truly crazy. But many are.

So how should we deal with those people?

It they are NOT a danger to themselves or any other people...........nothing.

A 5150 hold is good for 72 hours, after that who knows?

[Gob]

How should we treat crazy people?

Doesn't that depend on whether their mental health status had any effect or influence on the crime they committed?

[Lord Jim]

Jim--I guess it depends what you see as the ultimate goal of the prison system--removing people from society (so they can hurt no one else), punishment, or rehabilitation.

Big RR, you seem to present that as though it were a menu of three choices from which one must make a single selection...

It's far more complicated than that; the answer is, sometimes one, sometimes two, and sometimes all three, depending on the crime and the criminal....What "the ultimate goal" (or goals) needs to be, is entirely determined by the particular individual situation and circumstances.

There is for example, several hundred light years worth of difference between both the crime and the criminal when one compares the kind situation in the example Dave gives, (where we're talking about a person who wasn't the shooter, wasn't even physically present at the shooting, and has that kind of exemplary incarceration record, 15-20 years should certainly have been adequate for serious parole consideration) and a Ted Bundy or an Ariel Castro....

Additionally, the bright line you appear to draw between the three options you present, "protect society" "punishment" and "rehabilitation" isn't always present either...

For example there are many situations where punishment is a component of rehabilitation; a sort of aversion therapy, ("gee it really sucks to be in here; I sure don't want to do anything that will land me here again")

But all of that having been said, Joe really raises the operative point, in my view:

some crimes are so heinous that the person who commits one of those crimes should never be given a second chance.

When it comes to serial killers, mass murderers, or someone like the aforementioned Castro, (who imprisoned and tortured three girls for ten years, and about who's guilt there is zero doubt) I find the whole issue of "rehabilitation" completely disinteresting. If there is no death penalty available, folks like that should never see the light of day again, period.

In fact I find any system that would seriously consider releasing people of that ilk morally abhorrent. (And I find the situation in Norway, where the guy who killed 70 people could be out in 20 years, morally grotesque.)

If the Newtown shooter had lived, would he have deserved a "second chance"?

[Crackpot]

The major problem I have is that our system offers a one size fits all solution to all varieties of criminals

[Crackpot]

And don't get me started on the various roadblocks the system puts in place to keep punishing offenders on e they get out.