4 ms·

People are quick to argue that a life sentence can be reverted with the underlying assumption that all damage is reversed. I don't buy this for an instant.

fsloth 10y ago
Well, the point is not necessarily that it can be reversed. The point is that society takes the stand that taking a human life, no matter how debased, is barbarous. Of course, this takes us to euthanasia and abortion territory, so we could modify this by saying that taking a human life without a deathwhish and consent is barbarous - just as prolonging life beyond a certain point. A good example of a candidate for life imprisonment is a mass murderer who has obviously shot tens of peoples without any remorse and boasts doing it again. The crime is not debatable - the question then remains - how should a society respond to such a situation.
- omginternets 10y ago
  This was in response to the specific argument that life sentences can be reversed, which I don't think constitutes a strong argument.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    Ah, yes now I see your point. I agree, it confounds the discussion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
asolove 10y ago
You don't see a difference between "it's ten years later and we are going to free you, sorry" and "it's ten years later and you're dead, sorry"? Neither is good enough, of course, but one is still a hell of a lot better. The argument isn't that a life sentence can be fully reversed, just that it can be modified later, which death cannot be.
- omginternets 10y ago
  I do see the difference, but I'm not convinced it's anything but marginal. A ruined life isn't much better than death, and sometimes worse IMHO. Without wanting to throw around accusations (truly! I don't mean to presume anything about you, specifically!), I find that people who make your argument often have no appreciation of just how terrible a ruined life can be. I think it's critical to remember that there can be no suffering after death, and while I'd still rather rot in prison than hang for a crime I didn't commit, there's no question that imprisoning an innocent person will cause tremendous suffering and debilitating handicap. To be clear: there are other, stronger arguments against capital punishment. My point is rather that this one isn't the strong argument it's often made out to be.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    I think people who have been freed after decades in jail have very different humble opinions. There are plenty of documentaries and articles and books on that subject if you're interested.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Yes, I'm reasonably well-read on the subject. I don't deny that these people do exist. Rather, I argue that the "killing is worse than perpetual imprisonment because the later can be rescinded" argument is weak. This is because either way, people's lives are being ruined. There are a great many people who have been freed from jail only to continue suffering on the outside as a direct result of their incarceration. Incidentally, I think you've made some assumptions about my position on capital punishment that are mistaken... EDIT: I seem to have been unclear and this is causing a lot of visceral reactions. Yes, it's worse to be wrongfully killed than wrongfully incarcerated for life (or incarcerated for some length of time and then released). The argument is that it's still close enough that the argument of irreversibility should apply (IMHO) to life sentences. As such, I don't think this is a very strong argument against capital punishment. As an auxiliary point: I think there are other, much stronger arguments against CP. tl;dr: a life sentence is bad enough that the irreversibility argument should apply to it as well.
kafkaesq 10y ago
with the underlying assumption that all damage is reversed. No, that's not the assumption they're making. They're saying that the damage can at least be partially reversed.

fsloth 10y ago

Well, the point is not necessarily that it can be reversed. The point is that society takes the stand that taking a human life, no matter how debased, is barbarous. Of course, this takes us to euthanasia and abortion territory, so we could modify this by saying that taking a human life without a deathwhish and consent is barbarous - just as prolonging life beyond a certain point. A good example of a candidate for life imprisonment is a mass murderer who has obviously shot tens of peoples without any remorse and boasts doing it again. The crime is not debatable - the question then remains - how should a society respond to such a situation.

omginternets 10y ago
This was in response to the specific argument that life sentences can be reversed, which I don't think constitutes a strong argument.
- fsloth 10y ago
  Ah, yes now I see your point. I agree, it confounds the discussion.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

asolove 10y ago

You don't see a difference between "it's ten years later and we are going to free you, sorry" and "it's ten years later and you're dead, sorry"? Neither is good enough, of course, but one is still a hell of a lot better. The argument isn't that a life sentence can be fully reversed, just that it can be modified later, which death cannot be.

omginternets 10y ago
I do see the difference, but I'm not convinced it's anything but marginal. A ruined life isn't much better than death, and sometimes worse IMHO. Without wanting to throw around accusations (truly! I don't mean to presume anything about you, specifically!), I find that people who make your argument often have no appreciation of just how terrible a ruined life can be. I think it's critical to remember that there can be no suffering after death, and while I'd still rather rot in prison than hang for a crime I didn't commit, there's no question that imprisoning an innocent person will cause tremendous suffering and debilitating handicap. To be clear: there are other, stronger arguments against capital punishment. My point is rather that this one isn't the strong argument it's often made out to be.
- burkaman 10y ago
  I think people who have been freed after decades in jail have very different humble opinions. There are plenty of documentaries and articles and books on that subject if you're interested.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Yes, I'm reasonably well-read on the subject. I don't deny that these people do exist. Rather, I argue that the "killing is worse than perpetual imprisonment because the later can be rescinded" argument is weak. This is because either way, people's lives are being ruined. There are a great many people who have been freed from jail only to continue suffering on the outside as a direct result of their incarceration. Incidentally, I think you've made some assumptions about my position on capital punishment that are mistaken... EDIT: I seem to have been unclear and this is causing a lot of visceral reactions. Yes, it's worse to be wrongfully killed than wrongfully incarcerated for life (or incarcerated for some length of time and then released). The argument is that it's still close enough that the argument of irreversibility should apply (IMHO) to life sentences. As such, I don't think this is a very strong argument against capital punishment. As an auxiliary point: I think there are other, much stronger arguments against CP. tl;dr: a life sentence is bad enough that the irreversibility argument should apply to it as well.

kafkaesq 10y ago

with the underlying assumption that all damage is reversed. No, that's not the assumption they're making. They're saying that the damage can at least be partially reversed.