I wouldnt say you are a libertarian, more like a lunatic. I'm a libertarian and I take the complete opposite stance to you.
A real libertarian would not want the government interfereing in the rehabilitation process. A real libertarian would allow social mob justice, rather than the government to conduct the trial and let them do as they see fit.
You can only get convicted beyond any reasonable doubt. The jury are instructed to find you guilty only if there is no reasonable doubt.
And why should they get 1 appeal? I thought they had lost their right to that? After all, they took away their victims right to appeal ebing murdered.
Because if new evidence comes to light that may change things, they have the right to use it. That would be the only human right they keep - right to appeal if there is new significant evidence. If they are guilty of murder than they still lose all their rights. If they are innocent they get set free.
Even after they have left prison, they can be recalled at any time the parole officer wants. In a tiny minority of cases, it may be that the person gets let free and does something major before they can be recalled, but the damage done by these cases would easily be outweighed by the money saved in not having them in prison.
I was refering to murderers who go on to commit another serious crime. I agree that for general criminals there is a problem, but we can't just keep them in prison forever and extending their sentence won't make them any better when they get out. There is no easy solution, but longer sentencing won't help and costs a lot.
What's the point, you can't bring back the other persons. What's the point of taking somebody else's as well?
That's like saying if you murder someone there's no point in punishing the perpetrator since the person who's been robbed of their life is dead. That's like spitting on the graves of the victim. You might as well say 'do what the **** you like, there's no point if anyone gets hurt'.
Life already means life. When someone who has been given a life sentence is released, they are released on licence. If they commit any other crimes, they are returned to their life sentence. If, when the date after which they can be considered for release on licence arrives, they are thought too dangerous to be allowed out, they will be kept there. If they pose no further risk, keeping them in after however many years -- thirty, say -- serves no purpose and costs us money.
Well punishment for a start. If somebody brutally murdered a loved one of years would you like to see them serve a short sentence just because apparently they aren't a threat anymore? Just because they may have been rehabilitated doesn't mean they should not face punishment for what they have already done.
Then there are those that could just trick the system. Pretend they have been rehabilitated just to get out of prison, even if they actually feel no remorse for what they've done and may become a menace again when leaving prison.
Obviously i'm only talking murderers here but then i suppose they are usually only ever the people who get whole life sentences anyway.
No-one benefits from retribution. It's completely pointless.
That's like saying if you murder someone there's no point in punishing the perpetrator since the person who's been robbed of their life is dead. That's like spitting on the graves of the victim. You might as well say 'do what the **** you like, there's no point if anyone gets hurt'.
But there is a point in imprisoning the criminal, the 3 reasons I usually give are deterrent, rehabilitation, and removing dangerous people from society.