All that suggests is a flaw in how paroles boards decide who to let out. It does absolutely nothing to say that they shouldn't have the chance of release. What disadvantage is there to hearing their case and letting them out if there is a significant chance of not reoffending?
When you figure out a reliable way of keeping them in check and make parole more reliable, you tell me. You should also notify the various psychology associations around the world too, because they're still trying to figure it out.
When you figure out a reliable way of keeping them in check and make parole more reliable, you tell me. You should also notify the various psychology associations around the world too, because they're still trying to figure it out.
If there is no reliable way of testing them, then the parole board can rightly say that they aren't satisfied that he has shown a significant chance of not reoffending, and reject parole.
Btw I cannot find any reference saying that the killer in this case is a psychopath.
Psychopaths have the highest re-offending rate of any other inmates. I am inclined to suggest they make the sentence longer.
Has he been officially diagnosed as a psychopath?
I may have missed it where he has, although to my knowledge the only time that word has been used in relation to this case was when it was splashed on the front cover of the Daily Mail.
I obviously think what he did was horrendous, I also believe that the sentence is fair. I do not think it is fair to label him a psychopath unless that is how he has been diagnosed however. If you can provide the source of the diagnosis I would love to read it.
For what purpose? What is gained by such a sentence?
The fact that justice has been served and that he is being justly punished for his horrendous crime and the fact that it would act as a much stronger deterrent.
The fact that justice has been served and that he is being justly punished for his horrendous crime and the fact that it would act as a much stronger deterrent.
Yeah because before he did what he did, I am certain he thought: "Oh, I sure hope I don't get punished too much..."
Because that is what a totoally reasonable person would think. And he is clearly a totally reasonable person.
The fact that justice has been served and that he is being justly punished for his horrendous crime and the fact that it would act as a much stronger deterrent.
Absolutely no evidence that it acts as more of a deterrent.
As to the rest of your post-how does that benifit anybody else?
Absolutely no evidence that it acts as more of a deterrent.
As to the rest of your post-how does that benifit anybody else?
well you cannot quantify if it would act as a deterrent unless your a mind read or can see alternative timelines of the future. I would say it would obviously be deterrent as it is a harsher sentence and it benefits society to keep murders locked away for life for obvious reasons. Whether it benefits the average person on the street is either here nor there as I believe that life without parole for such a wicked killing is justice being served i believe it is a punishment that fits the crime
well you cannot quantify if it would act as a deterrent unless your a mind read or can see alternative timelines of the future. I would say it would obviously be deterrent as it is a harsher sentence and it benefits society to keep murders locked away for life for obvious reasons. Whether it benefits the average person on the street is either here nor there as I believe that life without parole for such a wicked killing is justice being served i believe it is a punishment that fits the crime
Evidence suggests that harsh punishments do not act as a deterrent. Just look that the USA for exampl,e they have extreme sentencing yet have a far higher crime rate.
I'm not sure if you actually read those. The first refers to suspended sentences for people who have already been to prison (neither applying here). The second says that they cannot conclude what the reason for lower reoffending was. They can't even decide if it was the time in prison or the time on licence that made them less likely to reoffend, let alone take into account that those on longer sentences may be a very different type of criminal (so not compareable) or that they were better rehabilitated. Even then it refers to reoffending rate not crime rate, so neither of these articles applies to this case at all even if they were totally valid.
Evidence suggests that harsh punishments do not act as a deterrent. Just look that the USA for exampl,e they have extreme sentencing yet have a far higher crime rate.
I'm not sure if you actually read those. The first refers to suspended sentences for people who have already been to prison (neither applying here). The second says that they cannot conclude what the reason for lower reoffending was. They can't even decide if it was the time in prison or the time on licence that made them less likely to reoffend, let alone take into account that those on longer sentences may be a very different type of criminal (so not compareable) or that they were better rehabilitated. Even then it refers to reoffending rate not crime rate, so neither of these articles applies to this case at all even if they were totally valid.
Crime would probably be much more prevalent in the US if they did not have long sentences.