Support NeoGAF

[Kthulhu]

Question for you lot. Should a terrorist say an Isis Operative who bombed a church and killed 50 people also be released upon rehabilitation assuming he is no longer a threat?

Yes.

Edit: FBI should probably keep an eye on him for a bit assuming ISIS is still around when he gets out.

 

[creatchee]

Are they willfully ignored? I don't think anyone ignores or has an issue with deterrence. Though vindictive people seem to vastly overestimate its effect as a justification for what they are really after.

Now the latter people aren't willfully ignoring, the other position is that retribution should not be part of the justice system. It's a relic of worse times.

If sentences are short for major crimes, there's less incentive for those who actually are in control of their faculties to abstain from them. For example, somebody who gets the idea to murder somebody for financial gain may decide not to go through with it if there is a life sentence or death penalty on the table. But if the prison sentence is for five or six years max (which I've seen thrown around by a lot of people as the maximum amount of time that it takes to rehabilitate somebody), they might go through with it.

As for retribution, that's for the victims and for the people affected by the crime. I think it's cool that some people can forgive and forget, but for everyone else, they want people to pay for their crimes beyond rehabilitation. It's not some dark ages conceit that won't go away.

 

[Cocaloch]

LOL you think those people are going to answer yes, even if that's how they feel?

I said yes. Another poster did too.

Honestly I bet if their kids were murdered in that church bombing... well, they can claim they'd still say yes but they'll never actually risk anything so it's easy for them to talk the talk.

Thanks for telling me how I'd feel. I'm sure you know quite a bit about my life and convictions. Luckily this also isn't relevant. We don't let victims give out punishment.

 

[CountAntonius]

Yes.

Yes.

Edit: FBI should probably keep an eye on him for a bit assuming ISIS is still around when he gets out.

Can't accuse you of being inconsistent.

LOL you think those people are going to answer yes, even if that's how they feel?



Honestly I bet if their kids were murdered in that church bombing... well, they can claim they'd still say yes but they'll never actually risk anything so it's easy for them to talk the talk.

They are hardliners. I expected as much.

 

[reckless]

Sure, but this acknowledges we need active justification, and the self-defense example in particular demonstrates that we need very strong active justification.

Not necessarily, that's just a hard to argue against example showing where killing someone is not always wrong.

You said that the American justice system was better than others because of the death penalty earlier right? That seems stronger than you being fine with it.

More of the idea that I don't think murderers for example should ever be free again (whether through life in prison or the death penalty), the U.S usually seems to get closer to that idea with longer sentences for murder then most Western Countries.

But isn't that how all criminal trials are supposed to work?

Sorta, but conviction requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is also very open to interpretation.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Expert testimony. But you're right, this isn't germane. The issue here is that people are axiomatically against the idea that a murder should leave jail, because they see the point of jail as punishing social transgressors.



We require the same sorts of evidence in both cases, which is to say expert testimony.



We have jury trials through historical accident. I am generally not a fan of them anymore, though they served their purpose in the early modern period.

I think you and I both know that not all cases are decided by expert testimony (whether high profile or not, ghastly serious felonies or the most minor of misdemeanors and everything in between).

And with that, when does the expert testimony matter more? If anything, flawed as it may be, I favor the jury determining the sentence as there's consistency between the jury deciding a verdict and the sentence. Where's the check against an "expert" with an agenda?

And even if juries were a historical accident (and I'll put that part aside for the sake of this), is Malvo really the appropriate poster child for the merits of rehabilitation?

Circling back to Malvo-- I *DO* believe he should get a new sentencing hearing. I just don't think it has much of anything to do with most of the conversations here that followed.

 

[Cocaloch]

If sentences are short for major crimes, there's less incentive for those who actually are in control of their faculties to abstain from them. For example, somebody who gets the idea to murder somebody for financial gain may decide not to go through with it if there is a life sentence or death penalty on the table.

Kinda sorta. Why don't you look at the sociological work on the subject? It has an effect, but it's not one to one and is less noticeable for more serious crimes.

But if the prison sentence is for five or six years max (which I've seen thrown around by a lot of people as the maximum amount of time that it takes to rehabilitate somebody), they might go through with it.

No one is arguing that no matter the crime you leave jail in 5 or 6 years. People are arguing we then judge the progress of rehabilitation.

It's not some dark ages conceit that won't go away.

I mean it isn't in the sense that it's much older. What's your argument that it isn't?

 

[Cocaloch]

They are hardliners. I expected as much.

I mean I knew that was supposed to be a gotcha, but this is just an asshole move.

I don't think stating that the justice system exists for the benefit and protection of the society is any more of a hardline position than one suggesting it exists to dole out retribution. Though I acknowledge it's not a particular popular position.

Not necessarily, that's just a hard to argue against example showing where killing someone is not always wrong.

I mean it is.

Just going to an extreme, i'm fine with a bunch of Nazi's getting the death penalty at Nuremberg, didn't really have a strong active justification there, but some people commit crimes so terrible that i'm alright with it.

I'm not touching this because it would derail the thread to kingdom come. I think you know that.

More of the idea that I don't think murderers for example should ever be free again (whether through life in prison or the death penalty), the U.S usually seems to get closer to that idea with longer sentences for murder then most Western Countries.

I don't understand how that goes against what I was saying. Clearly you think this is better.

Sorta, but conviction requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is also very open to interpretation.

Right, but it needs to be interpreted in a consistent way.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

His age at the time makes me think he should be treated as an adult, so he is fortunate not to be executed. An 18 year old where I live is old enough to drive a car, give consent, get served alcohol etc. They are considered old enough for such responsibilities, and surely not murdering people is a more basic one. He was less than 4 months shy of 18 when the first killings occurred. Would 4 months have made a difference to his state of mind? I very much doubt it.

He should have a hearing, but I think it was wrong to treat him differently in the first place. They should both have received life. I am in no position to judge if he should never be released, only people treating him can do that, which means that a judge shouldn't be able to exclude that by mandating they never be released. Anyone making that call in a review or hearing is always going to take into account how long they have been in prison for, even if they are not supposed to.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I dont know why people put so much power on the fact that he was 17 years old and technically a "minor". Thats just an arbitrary number that had no bearing on his mental state. Either way, 17 years is more than enough time to know right from wrong.

 

[CountAntonius]

I mean I knew that was supposed to be a gotcha, but this is just an asshole move.

I don't think stating that the justice system exists for the benefit and protection of the society is any more of a hardline position than one suggesting it exists to dole out retribution. Though I acknowledge it's not a particular popular position.

No it wasn't. Terrorism even for countries with a really good justice system tends to be an exception. I was just curious if that was an exception to you because it is to many who tend to feel the way you do about the justice system and rehabilitation(which for aside from mass murderers I agree with btw). I know Anders Breivik isn't technically in prison for life and still seems insane but even with their 5 year at a time evaluation period I don't believe he will ever see the light of day no matter how much progress he has made.

 

[Kthulhu]

Can't accuse you of being inconsistent.



They are hardliners. I expected as much.

I would hope not. I hate hypocrites.

 

[MUnited83]

LOL you think those people are going to answer yes, even if that's how they feel?



Honestly I bet if their kids were murdered in that church bombing... well, they can claim they'd still say yes but they'll never actually risk anything so it's easy for them to talk the talk.

Yes let's just assume that everyone that advocates for a working law system never were affected by a murder. Motherfucking wonderful.

 

[Cocaloch]

I think you and I both know that not all cases are decided by expert testimony (whether high profile or not, ghastly serious felonies or the most minor of misdemeanors and everything in between).

This is about what things should be like. Obviously in practice other things happen, but we're also talking about a situation where expert testimony is the only kind of evidence that can even get at what we are looking for.

And with that, when does the expert testimony matter more?

Because we understand experts as being epistemologically privileged. We as a society take them to have a special claim to having access to certain kinds of truths. Pertinent experts are better able to judge whether or not someone has been rehabilitated than the average person. That seems like a very reasonable claim.

If anything, flawed as it may be, I favor the jury determining the sentence as there's consistency between the jury deciding a verdict and the sentence. Where's the check against an "expert" with an agenda?

I don't really see what you're getting at here? Partially it would be the fact that expert communities are supposed to be self-regulating. You're right that this could lead to problems, but every conceivable system could lead to problems.

And even if juries were a historical accident (and I'll put that part aside for the sake of this)

Well this is already rather off topic. Your wording here casts doubt on what I'm saying, so why don't you tell me what your issue with this is. I'll be even more direct. We have juries deeply enshrined in the American understanding of justice because the Elizabethan settlement failed to sufficiently appease anyone in the Church of England.

Juries, and common law sanctification generally, are the result of English political thought surrounding the English Civil War.

is Malvo really the appropriate poster child for the merits of rehabilitation?

No, but you'll find I've said similar things elsewhere on GAF. This isn't the first time I've talked about this issue, and it won't be the last.

I think you recognize that this is a totally unfair point. If we want the system to work a certain way we need to be fair and apply it universally.

People in this thread are making some very suspect arguments.

Circling back to Malvo-- I *DO* believe he should get a new sentencing hearing. I just don't think it has much of anything to do with most of the conversations here that followed.

Of course it does. People are arguing about two camps of conflicting understandings of the justice system, even if they are doing it indirectly. Pretty much everything else follows from those understandings.

 

[reckless]

I mean it is.

Always wrong?

I'm not touching this because it would derail the thread to kingdom come. I think you know that.

Yeah, probably a good idea on second thought.

I don't understand how that goes against what I was saying. Clearly you think this is better.

Yeah longer sentences for murder is better.

Right, but it needs to be interpreted in a consistent way.

It can never be consistent since its an opinion, similar idea with when should the death penalty be applied.

 

[Cocaloch]

No it wasn't.

Uh, I'm going to call you out on this. You gave me a hard time for my answer, but you probably would have called me inconsistent if I had answered no.

Can't accuse you of being inconsistent.

Terrorism even for countries with a really good justice system tends to be an exception. I was just curious if that was an exception to you because it is to many who tend to feel the way you do about the justice system and rehabilitation(which for aside from mass murderers I agree with btw).

Come on. You weren't just curious, you were clearly making value judgements. I mean you quoted something that was incredibly rude to agree with it and call me a hardliner. Don't try and backpedal.

know Anders Breivik isn't technically in prison for life and still seems insane but even with their 5 year at a time evaluation period I don't believe he will ever see the light of day no matter how much progress he has made.

I think this is a good example. I generally side with Norway on this. He probably won't ever be let out, because he probably won't ever make sufficient progress in his rehabilitation. That's fine.

Yeah longer sentences for murder is better.

I mean I think you know everyone agrees with this. All I was pointing out was that you seemed to backpedal away from you making a value claim about the death penalty.

It can never be consistent since its an opinion, similar idea with when should the death penalty be applied.

What do you think precedent is?

 

[CountAntonius]

Uh, I'm going to call you out on this. You gave me a hard time for my answer, but you clearly would have called me inconsistent if I had answered no.



Come on. You weren't just curious, you were clearly making value judgements. I mean you quoted something that was incredibly rude to agree with it and call me a hardliner. Don't try and backpedal.



I think this is a good example. I generally side with Norway on this. He probably won't ever be let out, because he probably won't ever make sufficient progress in his rehabilitation. That's fine.

I didn't agree with her I said your response wasn't unexpected and the reason I asked about terrorism is because again it tends to be an exception for a lot of people who don't believe in life imprisonment or even capitol punishment. I've been in enough of these topics to know people rarely change opinions. You may not like the term hardline but that's exactly what your opinion is. I feel every government should strive toward what countries like Norway have achieved because it has proven to work but I do have a really hard time believing that under any circumstance mass murderers can ever be rehabilitated and should ever be released even if they are. Luckily I'm not in the position to make those choices and it absolutely is partly an emotional decision but I don't have a problem admitting that at all.

 

[Cocaloch]

You may not like the term hardline but that's exactly what your opinion is.

I'm willing to accept my opinion is hardline as long as we acknowledge that both sides are. Which is to say, I believe that both sides are committed to a foundation understanding of justice. I am committed to the idea that justice is not about retribution, the other side is committed to retribution being at least part of what it is about.

Even then it's clearly a pejorative, and if you were merely trying to be descriptive you could find another word. But you aren't. That's fine, but then don't act like you're above the argument. You aren't, your just engaging with it from the side and through implication instead of directly.

I feel every government should strive toward what countries like Norway have achieved because it has proven to work but I do have a really hard time believing that under any circumstance mass murderers can ever be rehabilitated and should ever be released even if theyare.

The root issue here is the question of why to the bolded.

 

[Ron Mexico]

This is about what things should be like. Obviously in practice other things happen, but we're also talking about a situation where expert testimony is the only kind of evidence that can even get at what we are looking for.

Because we understand experts as being epistemologically privileged. We as a society take them to have a special claim to having access to certain kinds of truths. Pertinent experts are better able to judge whether or not someone has been rehabilitated than the average person. That seems like a very reasonable claim.

I don't really see what you're getting at here? Partially it would be the fact that expert communities are supposed to be self-regulating. You're right that this could lead to problems, but every conceivable system could lead to problems.

Well this is already rather off topic. You're wording here casts doubt on what I'm saying, so why don't you tell me what your issue with this is. I'll be even more direct. We have juries deeply enshrined in the American understanding of justice because the Elizabethan settlement failed to sufficiently appease anyone in the Church of England.

Juries, and common law sanctification generally, are the result of English political thought surrounding the English Civil War.

No, but you'll find I've said similar things elsewhere on GAF. This isn't the first time I've talked about this issue, and it won't be the last.

I think you recognize that this is a totally unfair point. If we want the system to work a certain way we need to be fair and apply it universally.

People in this thread are making some very suspect arguments.

Of course it does. People are arguing about two camps of conflicting understandings of the justice system, even if they are doing it indirectly. Pretty much everything else follows from those understandings.

Apologies for the formatting. There's a lot of this that I'd respond to individually, but I also it feel it centers around the idea of idealism vs. pragmatism.

Ideally, there would be meaningful changes to the criminal justice system to address the inequalities that exist. The problem for me is centered around the bolded. We both acknowledge there are flaws, but what have we accomplished if we're just trading one set for flaws for another?

And if we can't implement a flawless system, we're left with where we are. And with that, Malvo should be given a new sentencing hearing and if he's then sentenced to life w/o parole, that's our justice system doing what it does.

 

[reckless]

I mean I think you know everyone agrees with this. All I was pointing out was that you seemed to backpedal away from you making a value claim about the death penalty.

Not really plenty of people seem to be fine with a murderer being released as long as they are "rehabilitated", no matter the amount of time they have been in prison. Since they are deemed not a threat due to an expert. I wonder how many of those people are fine with the "affluenza" kid not going to jail, an expert 'diagnosed' it and the expert judge was convinced by it.

I mean it's pretty much I don't want murders ever to be free, either through the death penalty or life in prison. The death penalty brings 2 advantages, deterrence (even if a small effect) and guarantees safety from the person.

 

[Cocaloch]

Apologies for the formatting. There's a lot of this that I'd respond to individually, but I also it feel it centers around the idea of idealism vs. pragmatism.

I don't think it really does. We use theory to inform praxis. Nothing about the fact that we will probably not be totally successful means that we need top pursue another course entirely.

Acting like the perfect is always the enemy of the good is a neat rhetorical device, but ultimately it is not convincing.

Nothing about picking the option that is not the best means it is more pragmatic.

Ideally, there would be meaningful changes to the criminal justice system to address the inequalities that exist. The problem for me is centered around the bolded. We both acknowledge there are flaws, but what have we accomplished if we're just trading one set for flaws for another?

This is where the pragmatism comes in. Not all flaws are equal. We improve from moving from bigger flaws to smaller flaws.

And if we can't implement a flawless system, we're left with where we are.

No. This is exactly what I was talking about before. Just because we won't have a flawless system doesn't mean we can't have a better one.

 

[CountAntonius]

I'm willing to accept my opinion is hardline as long as we acknowledge that both sides are. Which is to say, I believe that both sides are committed to a foundation understanding of justice. I am committed to the idea that justice is not about retribution, the other side is committed to retribution being at least part of what it is about.

Even then it's clearly a pejorative, and if you were merely trying to be descriptive you could find another word. But you aren't. That's fine, but then don't act like you're above the argument. You aren't, your just engaging with it from the side and through implication instead of directly.



The root issue here is the question of why to the bolded.

First you have to make me believe that a person capable of mass murder is capable of being rehabilitated, able to reintegrate into society and pose no threat. Once that is proven(which is a hard sell for me obviously) then I will still say no.Punishment is still part of the justice system and though rehabilitation should absolutely be the cornerstone I don't believe it's the only possible outcome to very trial and given how many mass murderers never see the light of day in any justice system I think that tends to be the case more often than not.

I also see how a prejudiced justice system makes these types of things dangerous which is why I don't support the death penalty.

 

[CrocMother]

I feel like if you take 17 people's lives from them then you don't get to be free and have a life of your own. Given the new law though, I think he should get a hearing and the professionals can decide.

I understand that you feel that way, but thankfully our legal system isn't based off of people's feelings.

 

[Cocaloch]

Not really plenty of people seem to be fine with a murderer being released as long as they are "rehabilitated", no matter the amount of time they have been in prison.

Well yes? I'm honestly not really sure what you're getting at. You have longer sentences for murder because it takes more time to rehabilitate a murderer than those who commit most other types of crimes.

I wonder how many of those people are fine with the "affluenza" kid not going to jail, an expert 'diagnosed' it and the expert judge was convinced by it.

Rich people will do better regardless of how the system is set up on a fundamental level. Money's influence in justice, and really our society writ large, is a separate issue entirely.

Which is to say, no one is fine with it, but this is a total non sequitur.

I mean it's pretty much I don't want murders ever to be free, either through the death penalty or life in prison. The death penalty brings 2 advantages, deterrence (even if a small effect) and guarantees safety from the person.

The issue with the bolded is it opens up the way for a lot of other problematic attitudes about what we do to protect society. It also should immediately fall apart given certain kinds of evidence right, specifically evidence that rehabilitation actual works? What is the rate of murder from those released by systems that actually focus on rehabilitation compared to the background population?

First you have to make me believe that a person capable of mass murder is capable of being rehabilitated, able to reintegrate into society and pose no threat. Once that is proven(which is a hard sell for me obviously) then I will still say no.

Uh okay. Weird thing to say. Clearly I don't have to prove that first since you find it irrelevant.

Punishment is still part of the justice system and though rehabilitation should absolutely be the cornerstone I don't believe it's the only possible outcome to very trial

Yes, I am aware this is how most of the people arguing against me in this thread feel. That's exactly what I've been talking about the whole time.

 

[reckless]

Well yes? I'm honestly not really sure what you're getting at. You have longer sentences for murder because it takes more time to rehabilitate a murderer than those who commit most other types of crimes.

Well I mean if the only goal is rehabilitation shouldn't sentences just be until they are rehabilitated and not have a set length?

Rich people will do better regardless of how the system is set up on a fundamental level. Money's influence in justice, and really our society writ large, is a separate issue entirely.

Which is to say, no one is fine with it, but this is a total non sequitur.

The idea that expert(s) can be wrong is pretty important, no matter the reason why they are wrong. Especially when the possible consequences are so dire.

The issue with the bolded is it opens up the way for a lot of other problematic attitudes about what we do to protect society. It also should immediately fall apart given certain kinds of evidence right, specifically evidence that rehabilitation actual works? What is the rate of murder from those released by systems that actually focus on rehabilitation compared to the background population?

As long as the rate is above 0 it ain't worth the risk murderers had their chance at a normal life and threw it away, prison is also partly about punishment.

 

[Cocaloch]

Well I mean if the only goal is rehabilitation shouldn't sentences just be until they are rehabilitated and not have a set length?

For reasons of implementation the best way to go about doing this is probably parole hearings at certain intervals.

The idea that expert(s) can be wrong is pretty important, no matter the reason why they are wrong. Especially when the possible consequences are so dire.

Except they are less, not more, likely to be wrong than alternatives. We can acknowledge that they can be wrong, while still understanding them to be the best option.

As long as the rate is above 0 it ain't worth the risk murderers had their chance at a normal life and threw it away, prison is also partly about punishment.

If rehabilitated murders are less likely to commit murder than random people then what's the point of not letting them back on the street? We let people with a higher chance of murdering people walk around?

This is all rhetorical, the answer is of course that since they committed a crime they are being punished. But then you've stepped away from utility, and right back into the attitude I am claiming is problematic.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Yes their grief is probably much greater than what I felt, but people eventually stop feeling it.

Families' grief should not impact someone's punishment. If all the people he killed had no family, would you feel that his sentencing was unfair?

Forget grief, I would imagine that those families would be terrified that they're no longer protected from a sociopath who has zero conscience and has demonstrated a clear willingness to kill for vague reasons. As would any sensible person who doesn't like getting shot.

 

[LinkAndEpona]

I chose reasonable punishment based on facts rather then blind rage based on ignorance. So whatever side you'd like to call that.

Again, why should it be? The families aren't constantly in grief. They get over it eventually. This guy is trapped in prison for the rest of his life. Even though he might not need to be.

Oh come on guy, this isn't a teen who sneaked into his parents' liquor cabinet, got wasted, and then decided to drive out to see his friends, killing a family in there SUV.

He committed so many acts of cold blooded murder, There's no coming back from that. Life in a jail cell is the lightest sentence he deserves.

 

[reckless]

Except they are less, not more, likely to be wrong than alternatives. We can acknowledge that they can be wrong, while still understanding them to be the best option.

Depends on your priorities in this case, the risk off of a murderer being set free greatly outweighs the benefits of letting murderers out.

If rehabilitated murders are less likely to commit murder than random people then what's the point of not letting them back on the street? We let people with a higher chance of murdering people walk around?

Because those people haven't actually done anything yet. And less likely =/= 0.

This is all rhetorical, the answer is of course that since they committed a crime they are being punished. But then you've stepped away from utility, and right back into the attitude I am claiming is problematic.

It can be both a punishment and a utility.

 

[jaekeem]

He should be treated humanely in prison, but I lose no sleep over him being locked up for life.

 

[Rentahamster]

This would need to depend on an evaluation to see if he's rehabilitated and not in a serial killer mental state. Our criminal justice system emphasizes punishment way too much over rehabilitation. It's both unjust and expensive.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Give him a second chance at life when those dead people get a second chance to live.

 

[Phased]

I can't believe somebody compared their Great Grandma dying a (what i assume) age related natural death to being gunned down while you pump fucking gas.

Let him rot in prison. 17 is old enough to know what is right and wrong.

 

[John Kowalski]

Question for you lot. Should a terrorist say an Isis Operative who bombed a church and killed 50 people also be released upon rehabilitation assuming he is no longer a threat?

Well at that point consideration for the physical integrity of the convicted might mean that he is safest in jail than not.

I understand that you feel that way, but thankfully our legal system isn't based off of people's feelings.

I mean... you don't get to say this when there's such a high degree of racial discrimination in the legal system.

 

[jaekeem]

I admire the optimism of those that genuinely believe that society can and should try, ceaselessly, to rehabilitate all.

But I just don't share that view. There are some crimes so monstrous and so abjectly cruel that I'm fine with the deterrent effect that locking someone up for life sends.

Serial rapists. Those that murder and sexually assault children. Serial killers (like this kid).

Should we lock them in some cold, iron room with no company for years? No. That's cruel and inhumane. But do we, as society, owe it to ourselves and them to try and fix them, or to make them whole enough to enter society again?

Meh. I don't think so.

 

[ohlawd]

dude should have been born a year earlier so he'd been executed alongside his father figure

there's always this extreme side of the "everyone can be rehabilitated" camp where the offender commits the most heinous shit and the camp'll go "he did some unforgivable shit but we can cure him." fucking bullshit. not everyone deserves a second chance. this guy is one of them.

 

[arts&crafts]

Arbitrary ages are kind of stupid for laws. I don't know how deep he was into his 17th year but lets say it was the day before his 18th birthday when he committed his last murder. According to the law he is a "child" but if he murdered someone the next day he would be an adult and his punishment would be much harsher. I think we can all agree that the difference between 17 and 18 is negligible in terms of mental capacity.

Now I know we obviously need a cut off or we could keep using this logic until we are at 9 or 10 but it still should really come down to the case when its 16-18 year old and murderers should just go to Juvenile jail if they are 17 and max security if they are 18. Just my thoughts anyway.

 

[dabig2]

I agree with eventual release as long as he's truly rehabilitated, but he shouldn't smell any sort of freedom until he's spent 50 years serving time for his heinous acts. So we're talking age 67-70.

And even after that, he's probated heavily and watched constantly until he finally bites it.

 

[CrocMother]

dude should have been born a year earlier so he'd been executed alongside his father figure

there's always this extreme side of the "everyone can be rehabilitated" camp where the offender commits the most heinous shit and the camp'll go "he did some unforgivable shit but we can cure him." fucking bullshit. not everyone deserves a second chance. this guy is one of them.

You are the one who is the extremist. You're calling for the execution of a minor. Is it really that hard to get it through your thick skull that even murderers can be rehabilitated and have a positive effect on society?

Or would you rather have this young man sit in prison for life and cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars?

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

What is the world's known best rehabilitation example? I understand he was a minor, but they killed a lot of people.

 

[CrocMother]

What is the world's known best rehabilitation example? I understand he was a minor, but they killed a lot of people.

In general, prison should have five goals, as described by criminologist Bob Cameron: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, restoration, and rehabilitation. In his words though, "Americans want their prisoners punished first and rehabilitated second."

Norway adopts a less punitive approach than the US and focuses on making sure prisoners don't come back. A 2007 report on recidivism released by the US Department of Justice found that strict incarceration actually increases offender recidivism, while facilities that incorporate "cognitive-behavioral programs rooted in social learning theory" are the most effective at keeping ex-cons out of jail.

The maximum life sentence in Norway shows just how serious the country is about its unique approach. With few exceptions (for genocide and war crimes mostly), judges can only sentence criminals to a maximum of 21 years. At the end of the initial term, however, five-year increments can be added onto to the prisoner's sentence every five years, indefinitely, if the system determines he or she isn't rehabilitated.

That's why Norwegian extremist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bombing and mass shooting, was only sentenced to 21 years. Most of the outrage and incredulity over that sentence, however, came from the US.

Overall, Norwegians, even some parents who lost children in the attack, seemed satisfied with the sentence, The New York Times reported. Still, Breivik's sentence, as is, put him behind bars for less than 100 days for every life he took, as The Atlantic noted. On the other hand, if the system doesn't determine Breivik "rehabilitated," he could stay in prison forever.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

LOL you think those people are going to answer yes, even if that's how they feel?



Honestly I bet if their kids were murdered in that church bombing... well, they can claim they'd still say yes but they'll never actually risk anything so it's easy for them to talk the talk.

I used to hear this sort of thing a lot, "if it was you or your loved ones, you wouldn't want to be as merciful."

It's horseshit.

I got hit by a drunk driver, sustained a brain injury, and spent the next three years in some kind of treatment or another for the fallout. If anything, my commitment to forgiveness was greater for the experience. Having gone through my own life shattering, I had no desire to make her suffer, too. I told the prosecuting attorney to go for probation rather than jail time, and I'm happy with the decision, since it will make a relapse less likely with minimal suffering on her part.

I'm not bragging, and I'm certainly not exceptionally strong willed. The point is that tragedy tends to sharpen one's convictions, not cause a 180. If you held the suffering of criminals as a terminal value before you were a victim, you still will. And if you didn't, you won't.

 

[IsntChrisL]

I used to hear this sort of thing a lot, "if it was you or your loved ones, you wouldn't want to be as merciful."

It's horseshit.

I got hit by a drunk driver, sustained a brain injury, and spent the next three years in some kind of treatment or another for the fallout. If anything, my commitment to forgiveness was greater for the experience. Having gone through my own life shattering, I had no desire to make her suffer, too. I told the prosecuting attorney to go for probation rather than jail time, and I'm happy with the decision, since it will make a relapse less likely with minimal suffering on her part.

I'm not bragging, and I'm certainly not exceptionally strong willed. The point is that tragedy tends to sharpen one's convictions, not cause a 180. If you held the suffering of criminals as a terminal value before you were a victim, you still will. And if you didn't, you won't.

I think the victim is often more willing to forgive the perpetrator than the victim's loved ones. Victims often just want to move on with their lives and don't want attention for seeking the punishment and suffering of someone else.

While the victim's family and friends suffered the collateral damage. They witnessed and shared some of the suffering that person inflicted on their loved one. They may never forgive that person.

If it had been someone in my family that he killed, I may just want to move on after so many years. But that doesn't mean I'd be okay with him being released. That's effectively saying that my brother/cousin/wife/father/mother's life (and the lives of several others) were less important than the person who took that life away in cold blood. There's no amount of time a stranger can do that would drum up more empathy than what I felt for the person he took from me.

 

[ohlawd]

You are the one who is the extremist. You're calling for the execution of a minor. Is it really that hard to get it through your thick skull that even murderers can be rehabilitated and have a positive effect on society?

Or would you rather have this young man sit in prison for life and cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars?

umph thick, my favorite word

say what you like. this dude will probably get his rehearing but nothing's gonna come out of it other than, as you say, costing the state hundreds of Gs. Just to reword it, guy is fortunate to have been born a year later.

rehab for theft and shit, why not. that's good. this shit though? nah. why even take the risk? he's all well and good then he goes nuts one day and guns down more innocents? forget it. I wouldn't take the odds even if it was infinitesimal. look, it could be that he was fully brainwashed by the other guy and what have you but it doesn't have absolve him of anything.

this shit is just frustrating. there's a defense for this guy who took part in systematic killings and there are also people who, in recent threads, defended the killer who killed her own sister and two other young women and then there's the guy who planned and succeeded in killing two kids for B&E

It's been a trend for a while now. Defense forces for the worst monsters. I don't get it

A-fucking-men

 

[MUnited83]

dude should have been born a year earlier so he'd been executed alongside his father figure

there's always this extreme side of the "everyone can be rehabilitated" camp where the offender commits the most heinous shit and the camp'll go "he did some unforgivable shit but we can cure him." fucking bullshit. not everyone deserves a second chance. this guy is one of them.

Calling people extremists while defending the death penalty is something else.

 

[Lister]

We can't say 17 year olds aren't developed enough to handle things like a driver's licence, or drinking or even sex in some states, and then say they are developed enough to face the full consequences of their actions.

It's one or the other.

 

[Yeoman]

We can't say 17 year olds aren't developed enough to handle things like a driver's licence, or drinking or even sex in some states, and then say they are developed enough to face the full consequences of their actions.

It's one or the other.

Because driving a car responsibly is not the same as knowing not to murder 17 people.
By the age of 2 years old most normal human beings should be able to recognise that murder is wrong.

 

[Blindy]

If you know how to use a gun well enough to kill and know all of the in's and out's in using such a gun, you essentially forfeit your juvenile standing because you're not completely oblivious to your actions. You don't just know how to use a sniper rifle from the get go.

Him and his team even asking for this is baffling. Own up to your fatal mistake and rot away in purgatory. You failed in your purpose of life, you should not get a 2nd chance.

 

[frankie_baby]

The guy was 17, you cant give life without parole at that age, people that say oh 17 is close enough to 18 well where would you draw the line? 16? 15? 14? Well the fact is that line is supposed to drawn at 18 simples

 

[Daedardus]

The guy was 17, you cant give life without parole at that age, people that say oh 17 is close enough to 18 well where would you draw the line? 16? 15? 14? Well the fact is that line is supposed to drawn at 18 simples

I think you can draw the line where people plan and act like normally an adult is supposed to do. Your biological age is of course linked to your mental age, but some people act like adults at age 16 and some people are more compared to 16 year olds at age 18. Of course, the same person at 14 or at 18 will act differently, but the fact is that some countries treat a juvenile as a full adult if it can ascerted that its behaviour is in cordordance with adult behaviour, the reverse is also possible.

In this case, the planning, the amount of killings and the way the killings were performed certainly indicate that he knew what he was doing. I'm not familiar with US crimininal and juveline laws, but here he would certainly by fully trialed as an adult with subsequent possible punishments.