Class debate: "A 'life sentence' should be for life."

So you are giving me a 100% guarantee that no criminal who has murdered, raped or tortured, will ever reoffend in any way after the magic number of 20 years, and that our justice system is able to flawlessly ascertain whether a person is still a danger to society or not? This has almost nothing to do with deterrence. Usually the dealth penalty is brought into arguments regarding deterrence, but thats not what we're discussing here.. Have you ever herped so hard you derped?

You realise many of these people have mothers, wives, children?
Your callous lack of empathy is a classic trait of a psychopath. Have you ever considered contacting a psychologist?



It is quite hard to understand as you keep contradicting yourself.

This:
"I agree that it's almost always a poor upbringing or childhood abuse"

contradicts this:
"They're responsible for their actions that got them put inside, so that's reason enough to keep them there."

You agree with me that people become murderers out of several different factors which are out of control. This means they have diminished responsibility. I see very little difference between a murderer and a mentally insane person - they both did not choose to be one, it is the result of outside factors. How can murderers have full responsibility? Why should we blame them?

That is absolutely not what I said.

You have either misinterpreted or deliberately twisted what I said. I quite clearly stated "or other value" and "criminal X" in reference to a hypothetical individual who we know for certain will be rehabilitated after 20 years.

I am in no way saying this is a reflection of reality, I was just showing that, in theory the life sentence has no purpose.

Yes you're right, we're not discussing the death penalty, the deterrent I'm suggesting is ineffective is the life sentence, I thought that was clear.

Please don't accuse me of herping, that's not how I roll. I for one always derp before I herp, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Right so what was the point of your post? Hypothetically sure, but in reality you can never know for certain whether someone has been rehabilitated.

If even 1% of people released early from a life sentence reoffend, then those are innocent lives being lost because we chose to trust a previous murderer/inhuman individual. Life sentence = life sentence, end of.

Of course it should be. Anything less isn't "life" and should be given in years.

Whats the point of a life sentence if they are freed after 20 or so years? That's hardly life

But that was the whole point...

So you'll concede that in theory there is no point in the life sentence?





Right, so the debate is no longer on whether or not the life sentence is necessary but whether rehab works?

In theory, but it is impossible for everyone to be rehabilitated. So yes, the debate could move on to whether rehab works. And the answer is no, in many cases it doesn't work, and we can never truly know for sure one way or another. Therefore, to prevent the chance of us getting it wrong and letting free a man who will reoffend, we can then conclude that the life sentence is necessary.

So really the argument is about life sentences, because we aren't working with theoretical or unrealistic situations, were talking about what actually happens. Who would you rather give the benefit of the doubt to? A criminal who has the capacity to murder, or innocent civilians who are likely to be a victim?

Who says that is the case? I'm not going to argue either way as I have no sources, but if you do, please share.

Well, I think you've made a bad choice of words there. Would you not say that innocent civilians also have the capacity to murder? Aren't all murders innocent civilians first?

That's a bit too theoretical, I know, however I'll stand by the point that if is possible for someone to be rehabilitated then there is no reason to keep them in for life.

And if even a miniscule amount of people release reoffend, then it is not worth taking that chance when we could have simply left them in prison.

I know but you're straying into philosophical territory. If a miniscule amount of people reoffend, and that rate so happens to be the same or less as the rate of 'normal' people offending, then isn't that unfair to keep them in prison as they would be, to all extents and purposes, the same danger as anyone.

I know we've strayed away from the original point, but it's been interesting. All I wanted to argue is that if someone can be rehabilitated after the deterrent, there's no need to keep them in prison.

Murderers know fully what they're doing, so they hold full responsibility.

There is no statistic for "normal" people offending, i mean I guess if you say everyone is a "normal" person at some stage then that statistic would simply be the murder rate. Which usually is around 2 or 3 per 100,000 people. I have a feeling that the recidivism rate for murder is going to be a lot higher than that. In fact in the US, off wikipedia:

"Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide."

So there you go. We can never know who out of the "general population" has the capability of murdering, so that is a rather pointless argument, but we do know that previous murderers have that capability, and the statistics show it quite clearly. So as much as we might be able to declare a person fit to be released to the public, it is impossible to know that for sure, and I would rather keep them off the streets if it would even save a small number of lives. After all, they chose to do what they did and they forfeited their right to live among a civilised society, simple as that

peace

How on earth can you think they hold full responsibility? You agreed with me that people become murderers because of genetic and childhood factors. Ergo, they are not completely responsible, because it's not their fault they had the wrong genes and bad parents.

How on earth can you think they hold full responsibility? You agreed with me that people become murderers because of genetic and childhood factors. Ergo, they are not completely responsible, because it's not their fault they had the wrong genes and bad parents.

Law's law, isn't it? They hold full responsibility for their actions, therefore punishment's necessary.

But their parents haven't made them kill someone. They have chosen to kill a person. They are responsible for their own actions.

The most obvious difference is that, if new evidence is uncovered later, you can reevaluate the case of the person serving life. If you've killed them, you can't go some way to make up for the mistake.

I don't think you understand.
Check this link: http://www.naturalism.org/sommers.htm



please see the above link

Leopold and Loeb killed to see if they could get away with it, not due to upbringing.

Why would someone kill to get away with it? Something has clearly gone wrong.

The duo was motivated to murder Franks by their desire to commit a perfect crime.

They wanted to commit the perfect crime.