Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Is lifelong imprisonment inhumane?

89 replies to this topic
Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#61

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:22 AM

Don't most jurisdictions take that into account when sentencing, though? If they're judging a particular incident and they can assert beyond reasonable doubt that it was a crime of passion and that, aside from the incident, the person found guilty of the crime is not a danger to society at large and is, as you describe them, 'normal', then the sentence will be lowered to take that fact into account.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#62

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:05 AM

QUOTE (Zugzwang @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 04:46)
There's no rehabilitating to be done there; the person did what a normal person would have done under the same emotional strain.

So basically, we're all just one nasty argument or cuckolding away from being violent murderers?

Icarus
  • Icarus

    Orthonormal

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2002

#63

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:38 PM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 21:22)
Don't most jurisdictions take that into account when sentencing, though? If they're judging a particular incident and they can assert beyond reasonable doubt that it was a crime of passion and that, aside from the incident, the person found guilty of the crime is not a danger to society at large and is, as you describe them, 'normal', then the sentence will be lowered to take that fact into account.

If the sentencing judge didn't take it into account, the parole board should. When they consider your likelihood to re-offend, they would likely note you're a low risk if you were in for a crime of passion.

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#64

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE (Icarus @ Wednesday, Jul 17 2013, 23:38)
QUOTE (Stefche @ Tuesday, Jul 16 2013, 21:22)
Don't most jurisdictions take that into account when sentencing, though? If they're judging a particular incident and they can assert beyond reasonable doubt that it was a crime of passion and that, aside from the incident, the person found guilty of the crime is not a danger to society at large and is, as you describe them, 'normal', then the sentence will be lowered to take that fact into account.

If the sentencing judge didn't take it into account, the parole board should. When they consider your likelihood to re-offend, they would likely note you're a low risk if you were in for a crime of passion.

It was a rhetorical question. tounge.gif Of course they'd take it into account, it's part of their job to do that. Those cases which end up with lower sentences being handed out due to mitigating circumstances (such as the crime of passion line) are usually the ones which are misrepresented and simplified by the media, resulting in people providing an outcry of judges being "out of touch" with humanity and society's expectations if the case is particularly sensitive.

King Andreas
  • King Andreas

    (_)

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2013
  • None

#65

Posted 21 July 2013 - 04:16 AM Edited by King Andreas, 18 August 2013 - 05:43 PM.

As long as life imprisonment is on the law books, what's the incentive for habitual offenders (such as serial killers) to turn themselves in, let alone plead guilty? Needless to say, a fugitive is more likely to surrender if (for example) the law doesn't allow for consecutive sentencing, and the maximum sentence is, lets say 30 years, as in Brazil's case. Also, if they surrender, they get 5 years taken off their imprisonment; if they plead guilty, they get an additional 5 years taken off. This doesn't happen when life imprisonment is a factor.

The Gardener
  • The Gardener

    jebeno isti

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • None

#66

Posted 14 August 2013 - 03:22 PM

It's not as inhumane as killing someone in cold blood. All in all the justice system needs some changes.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#67

Posted 14 August 2013 - 05:55 PM

QUOTE (SomeManForGTA @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 16:22)
It's not as inhumane as killing someone in cold blood. All in all the justice system needs some changes.

Next time you decide to contribute to D&D, how about you do so with something extending to more than 20-odd words, that actually makes a point. Or did you not read any of the forum rules?

The Gardener
  • The Gardener

    jebeno isti

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • None

#68

Posted 14 August 2013 - 07:28 PM Edited by SomeManForGTA, 14 August 2013 - 07:42 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 17:55)
QUOTE (SomeManForGTA @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 16:22)
It's not as inhumane as killing someone in cold blood. All in all the justice system needs some changes.

Next time you decide to contribute to D&D, how about you do so with something extending to more than 20-odd words, that actually makes a point. Or did you not read any of the forum rules?

My point was I agree with lifelong inprisonment and that it's not inhumane if the person is a murderer or something along those lines. Especially the guys the OP lists. People who have been convicted of murdering 30-60 people. Its just an opinion.

How is that not contributing? Maybe my post was a bit too brief. I rarely view this section. Is there rules when it comes to using so little words? I'll check the rules out. The last thing I want to do is argue with you, it was not my intention to make a pointless post.

Also I find the whole concept of inmates been let out early due to good behavior silly. If they've commited such a crime they should do the sentenced time as a minimum, regardless of their behavior while in prison. There's ordinary/expected behavior and then there's bad behavior. A murderer gets out 5 years early for being good while in jail? He wasn't being good when he murdered the guy and pleaded innocent.

D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Redundant Account

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#69

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:24 PM

QUOTE (King Andreas @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 04:16)
Something I should've added when I started this topic: As long as life imprisonment is on the law books, what's the incentive for habitual offenders (such as serial killers) to turn themselves in, let alone plead guilty? Needless to say, a fugitive is more likely to surrender if (for example) the law doesn't allow for consecutive sentencing, and the maximum sentence is, lets say 30 years, as in Brazil's case. Also, if they surrender, they get 5 years taken off their imprisonment; if they plead guilty, they get an additional 5 years taken off. This doesn't happen when life imprisonment is a factor.

Just throwing it out there that for the most part serial killers are either psychopaths or sociopaths. They don't conform to rational thought processes and therefore would not be expected to turn themselves in ever, regardless of their potential sentence.

And in your example, a multiple murderer who hands himself in could be released from prison in 20 years to potentially kill again? Wow.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#70

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:55 PM

QUOTE (SomeManForGTA @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 20:28)
Also I find the whole concept of inmates been let out early due to good behavior silly. If they've commited such a crime they should do the sentenced time as a minimum, regardless of their behavior while in prison. There's ordinary/expected behavior and then there's bad behavior. A murderer gets out 5 years early for being good while in jail? He wasn't being good when he murdered the guy and pleaded innocent.

The issue is, by what arbitrary metric do we decide what crimes equate to what prison sentence? Even if you concede the primary purpose of prison is to punish individuals for their action- which, in the vast majority of cases, has been demonstrated to actually make society less coherent and empirically worse, but I digress- who is responsible for turning measurable societal harm- from which prison sentences should be derived in my view- into a coherent sentencing plan?

That's better, by the way. icon14.gif

John The Grudge
  • John The Grudge

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009

#71

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:28 AM Edited by John The Grudge, 15 August 2013 - 08:40 AM.

I think it's inhumane in at least some cases. Particularly cases where a young man or woman has got involved in a gang and committed a crime such as murder.

This case really stood out to me:


AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#72

Posted 30 August 2013 - 03:47 PM Edited by AtomicPunk, 30 August 2013 - 03:50 PM.

^So what, we're supposed to feel sorry for this murderer and let him go because he has no moral code, a low IQ,- and joined a gang? Unbelievable thinkers in this section of the forums.






People who are sentenced to life should be given an option to either stay in prison for the rest of their lives or be hung by the neck from a tree until death occurs. Me personally, for lifers, I say hang'em high. Repeat offenders, hang'em high. What's being done isn't working. People who are mentally unfit, hang'em. Pedophiles? Hang'em. Rope and a tree works miracles to make a better society.

D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Redundant Account

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#73

Posted 30 August 2013 - 03:54 PM

Repeat offenders deserve to be hung? And the developmentally disabled? I have no words.

AtomicPunk
  • AtomicPunk

    I'm your huckleberry

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2012

#74

Posted 30 August 2013 - 11:53 PM

QUOTE (D4 Damager @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 11:54)
Repeat offenders deserve to be hung? And the developmentally disabled? I have no words.

Oh pretend to be offended.
I mean the criminally insane.

Death2Drugs
  • Death2Drugs

    Wanna milky?

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2011
  • Mexico

#75

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:34 PM

My country is perhaps one of the nicest when it comes to punishment. In Mexico, there is no such thing as the death penalty. In fact, there is no such thing as lifelong imprisonment (exception is Chihuahua). The maximum you can get here is 60-70 years. There's been a massive debate over the life imprisonment, and whether drug offences should carry a lifelong offence.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#76

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:58 AM

My country is perhaps one of the nicest when it comes to punishment. In Mexico, there is no such thing as the death penalty. In fact, there is no such thing as lifelong imprisonment (exception is Chihuahua). The maximum you can get here is 60-70 years. There's been a massive debate over the life imprisonment, and whether drug offences should carry a lifelong offence.

Seventy years is, for all intents and purposes, a life sentence.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#77

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:21 AM

In Mexican prisons it is anyway.

luckyshot666
  • luckyshot666

    Badfella

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2013

#78

Posted 04 October 2013 - 12:01 PM Edited by luckyshot666, 04 October 2013 - 12:01 PM.

Lifelong imprisonment is inhumane, but so is murder and rape. I don´t believe in easy way out for scum like that, they all should spend eternity in some forced labor camp instead of being burden for honest taxpayers.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#79

Posted 04 October 2013 - 08:00 PM


Also I find the whole concept of inmates been let out early due to good behavior silly. If they've commited such a crime they should do the sentenced time as a minimum, regardless of their behavior while in prison. There's ordinary/expected behavior and then there's bad behavior. A murderer gets out 5 years early for being good while in jail? He wasn't being good when he murdered the guy and pleaded innocent.

It's not silly, though. Releasing people for good behavior has little to do with making them have good behavior in prison. It's for a few reasons - chief among them the general overcrowdedness of prisons. Prisons have too many people in them - too many people are in the system and we need to get them out. Second, giving people a reason to not cause problems while inside protects the lives of COs and overall contributes to a better environment inside the correctional institution... lastly and probably the reason I agree with the good behavior release is that it encourages people to actually try to get rehabilitated. By taking your rehabilitation seriously while you are in prison you are able to shave time off your sentence (usually days at a time) - and that encourages the furthering of what the STATED goal of prisons are, which is to rehabilitate and "correct" prisoners.


Jokimoto
  • Jokimoto

    Disco Bandit

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2013

#80

Posted 29 November 2013 - 09:24 AM

Just my opinion, mind you, but:

 

To tell someone that they and their crime/s were so heinous, so reprehensible, so foul and morally corrupt that they don't deserve to be part of society and never will, but that you're also going to keep them alive as long as possible, feed them, clothe them, fix their rotten teeth, etc., just so that they can stay around and suffer until you're no longer able to keep them alive to do so, that is the very definition (for me) of "cruel and unusual". 

 

Forget Life w/o Parole. If they're that bad, execute them. 


Panz
  • Panz

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2008
  • United-States

#81

Posted 04 January 2014 - 07:37 PM

It's not inhumane. It is, however, quite costly, and one of the big reasons why a lot of people don't want lifelong imprisonment is because we're wasting our precious tax dollars feeding and taking care of criminals.  At that point, it turns into whether or not we should just go the capital punishment route, but in that case, at least to me, it becomes a matter of how killing a murderer is really just a bit hypocritical. 

 

Oftentimes, criminals have something going on with their mental state that caused them to commit their crimes.  Not always, but there does seem to be a trend.  Criminals also have the capability of being highly manipulative. Sure, they might express good behavior in jail because they want to get out early, but is this believable? I mean, really. I think that anyone would be on their best behavior if it meant shortening their sentence, if even by a year. Does this mean they've changed for the better? Maybe, but not always.  A lot of times they're just doing what they can to survive. If we give them the shorter sentences, say 30-40 years rather than lifetime sentences, what do you think the criminals are going to do when they're released? We throw them back into society after how many decades and expect them to situate themselves into a healthy lifestyle? God, what if they grew up knowing nothing but crime, doing nothing but dealing drugs or murdering only because it was all they knew. We can't really expect them to go out in a society that they haven't seen in decades, magically place themselves in a good crowd of people and make something good out of themselves when their only real connections might be back where they got themselves into trouble in the first place. 

 

I don't really have a solid opinion on this because I hate how much money we dump into this system, but I think a lifelong sentence is important for a person who commits something such as murder or rape. We all know it's wrong, and we're all full aware of the consequences. You commit the act, you pay the price. If we let up, will crime become more prevalent? Maybe we give out these lifelong sentences to deter criminals from committing their acts, but honestly, I don't think they really care when they're in the moment. A bad person will likely always be a bad person, unless we spend even more money in rehabilitation services in prisons, which to me isn't such a bad idea if we're just going to let some of these assholes out, anyway. 


El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#82

Posted 05 January 2014 - 11:18 AM

I would say that as long as the appeal processes for the reduction of life sentences are fair, then why not? They should be used sparingly, for only the absolute worst offenders, but in the case of compulsive murders, for example, they are perfectly justified in keeping someone guilty of appalling crimes away from society. In some instances, rehabilitation may not be feasible, and even if it is, may be strenuous to prove comprehensively. Therefore, life sentences to reduce the risk of re-offence is a logical policy.

  • Stefche likes this

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#83

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:18 PM

Quite honestly I think the death penalty is a better alternative to 25 to life. I couldn't imagine the horror of living inside a cage for the rest of my days. I guess that depends on how you appreciate the "gift" of life. I'd rather not force myself into that kind of situation in the first place, but the kind of discrimination that goes on around L.A. people get framed for murder and your sentence is usually lightened based on how light your skin is and I think that's one of the most messed up things about this country, especially considering all the prison gangs and whatnot. They're more akin to tribes than anything else these days.


D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Redundant Account

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#84

Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:19 PM

It's not inhumane. It is, however, quite costly, and one of the big reasons why a lot of people don't want lifelong imprisonment is because we're wasting our precious tax dollars feeding and taking care of criminals.  At that point, it turns into whether or not we should just go the capital punishment route, but in that case, at least to me, it becomes a matter of how killing a murderer is really just a bit hypocritical.

The problem with making economic arguments for the death penalty over life without parole is that there have been several studies that have shown that the cost of maintaining a capital punishment system is much greater than one in which the maximum is a whole life tariff.

 

And of course, you've touched on another argument against the death penalty so it's obvious that you're not in favour of it. That's an argument for another day I guess aha.

  • Tyler and Stefche like this

Ziggy455
  • Ziggy455

    I'm the writer.

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2007

#85

Posted 20 February 2014 - 07:59 PM

In the aspect of pure premeditated murder then lifelong imprisonment is very fair indeed. In reference to Pedro Alonso Lopez, is it not a fair justice system to have a man who has murdered over three hundred people to have the rest of his life in prison? Three hundred people allegedly but fifty-seven? Look at the minimum life-expectancy of people in the time of the murders. Shouldn't he have just been given multiple life-sentences? Let's look at the justice of the victims.

 

57 divided by 16 gives us an estimate of 20 - 40 days per victim. Really? Is that all they were worth for his freedom? Each one forty days maximum insides for the life of a man who proudly says he's murdered three hundred? In that term, yes, life imprisoment is very, very humane.

 

As for manslaughter or other low grade offences, it is still debateable that lifelong imprisonment is humane or not. It all depends on the crime. 


Ava822
  • Ava822

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#86

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:27 PM

I really think that it depends on what you do.  For example if you kill someone, in the case of a murder, then you should have to spend your life in prison.  why should you get to be free when you took someone's life on purpose?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#87

Posted 09 March 2014 - 12:37 AM

I really think that it depends on what you do.  For example if you kill someone, in the case of a murder, then you should have to spend your life in prison.  why should you get to be free when you took someone's life on purpose?

For all of the reasons explained in depth over the past three pages?

  • Stefche, Raavi and Myron like this

AndrewDeSanta
  • AndrewDeSanta

    TheLosSantosRaiders

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2012

#88

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:40 AM

Life in prison is just a liberal alternative to the death penalty, capital punishment should be brought back. 


Myron
  • Myron

    Myron baby, Myron

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#89

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:41 AM

Life in prison is just a liberal alternative to the death penalty, capital punishment should be brought back. 

This well thought out and informative post has changed my view on the subject entirely.

  • Raavi likes this

TheBlackPeterParker.
  • TheBlackPeterParker.

    616 Hero.

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2013

#90

Posted 12 March 2014 - 06:05 AM

It depends on the situation.

 

If it's like a Bigger Thomas situation (someone killed another due to an unfortunate set of circumstances) then yes, because it's not really their fault.

 

But if the person does some crazy sh*t like killed 20 people, raped 5 women, and chopped of a dudes dick, then........





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users