4 ms·

Should a killer get released after 14 years though, after "good behavior"? If we're talking about premeditated murder, you can be pretty sure you're dealing wit

Should a killer get released after 14 years though, after "good behavior"? If we're talking about premeditated murder, you can be pretty sure you're dealing with an individual who doesn't have good behavior. Second, 14 (or 21) years for murder, really? A life isn't worth a lot anymore these days..

gpvos 10y ago
In the Netherlands, 20 years (with early release after 13-14 years) used to be the maximum sentence, apart from life sentence, which actually used to be really for life. Parole is possible, but seldom used; release for good behaviour (after a certain minimum number of years) was not possible at all. The European Court for Human Rights actually recently forced us to implement an early release possibility. I think a few years ago we also got a 30 year option (with early release after 20), because judges weren't willing to impose a life sentence due to the aforementioned reason. Also, 14/21 years is about 20-25% of one's life. I think that's quite a lot, really.
ordinary 10y ago
Prison sentences in the Netherlands for aren't imposed as punishment alone, not even mostly. They are primarily tools of prevention (including the prevention of recidivism). If a convicted criminal is no longer considered to be a threat to society what's the point of keeping them locked up? If longer sentences (longer than whatever they are) have not shown to reduce the crime rate through deterrent, why impose them? Prisons cost money.
- kriro 10y ago
  I feel like murder (or most major crimes really) is a very special case. I'd prefer a system where the default is a life sentence (a lifetime for a life feels just) but the option to release after n years if relatives/family of the victim agree to it. It's probably very impractical but would appeal most to my personal understanding of justice.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    And that goes back to OP's point. Many countries don't view prison as "just", but as a means for rehabilitation or crime-prevention.
    - kriro 10y ago
      I think it can very much be both. But I feel victims are underrepresented in the rehabilitation discussion. My inner moral compass says they should be involved and it shouldn't all be up to review boards. I'm fully aware that I have a somewhat naive worldview though (I'd expect most victims to understand if someone was rehabilitated and be willing to forgive)
  - gpvos 10y ago
    One of the reasons we have a justice system instead of revenge and vendettas is that we hope to have progressed a bit past "a life for a life". That is also why we don't let the victims have influence over their release. As far as I'm concerned, there is indeed a punishment/revenge factor also in our current justice system, besides rehabilitation and keeping the streets safe from wrongdoers. That could lead to minimum sentences, especially for murder and even more so when it's premeditated. In general, I find that judges (in the Netherlands) strike an okay balance.
- lisivka 10y ago
  If I have proposition to kill someone else for money, e.g. $10M, for exchange of 7 years in comfortable Dutch prison, I will grab the money.
  - eric_the_read 10y ago
    If the only reason you haven't murdered anyone is that you haven't been offered enough money, I'm genuinely concerned.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      It's just example. People are killing people for way smaller reasons. My price is very high, isn't? How much people live in Dutch? If Russians will send one killer for every key men in country, country will be their in just 12 years, while they lose nothing, because Dutch prison is much much more comfortable than a flat in Rostov. I see that in Ukraine right now.
  - ordinary 10y ago
    Unlike in most other European countries, Dutch law allows for life imprisonment without parole, from which only a royal pardon can save you. Since 1970, 43 people have been convicted, 2 of whom were eventually pardoned, both because of terminal illness. A quick glance through the recent list of convictions[1] shows that most life sentences were imposed in cases of multiple homicide, homicide for financial gain and homicide related to organized crime. In addition, convicts may be involuntarily committed when their sentence is over (and often before). This is aimed at rehabilitation, but can be extended indefinitely. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_tot_levenslang_veroordeelden_in_Nederland#Na_1970 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_tot_levenslang_veroo... (in Dutch)
    - lisivka 10y ago
      OK, thank you. So I will not tell anybody that I did that by request of someone else, then serve 12 years and will be free and with money, unless my mother will come in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Mercader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Mercader (in English).
michaelt 10y ago
To me, going in at age 20 and coming out at age 34-41 seems like a pretty big chunk of your life gone?
- charlesdm 10y ago
  It is, I'm not saying it's not. But the other person is dead and gone forever? Imagine if someone killed your wife/child/brother/mother/etc. Does that seem like a correct punishment? I'm not talking about accidents (e.g. a car crash), but premeditated murder? I personally think the length of that punishment is not in line with the crime. But hey, I'm getting downvoted to hell, so I guess most people think it is.
  - adwn 10y ago
    > I personally think the length of that punishment is not in line with the crime. But hey, I'm getting downvoted to hell, so I guess most people think it is. You're getting downvoted because you treat imprisonment as vengeance, as paying back a debt that is owed to the victim's family. The more reasonable approach is to use imprisonment as a tool which prevents future crimes by the perpetrator and other potential criminals (through rehabilitation and deterrence). This yields better results and higher benefits to society as a whole, even if it might not be as emotionally satisfying to the victim's family.
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      For most crimes, I definitely agree that imprisonment should be a tool to prevent further crime. In most cases, genuinely punishing someone for (stupid) mistakes (s)he has made is unproductive for society. But murder seems like a very specific situation (to me at least) where someone has crossed the line. Can one really come back from murder? Would you be comfortable spending time with someone you know who has cold-bloodedly killed another human being? I know I wouldn't. And I'm generally a person who is pretty open about most things.
      - lagadu 10y ago
lagadu 10y ago
> A life isn't worth a lot anymore these days.. Seems you're the one who isn't giving much value to the prisoner's life here. If rehabilitation can't be accomplished in 14 years, it won't be accomplished in 20 or 30 either so what's the point of keeping them inside an arbitrary number of years after that? edit: I just noticed you referred to imprisonment as punishment on another thread; that's where we differ in belief.
- lisivka 10y ago
  The point is that they cannot harm us while in prison.

gpvos 10y ago

In the Netherlands, 20 years (with early release after 13-14 years) used to be the maximum sentence, apart from life sentence, which actually used to be really for life. Parole is possible, but seldom used; release for good behaviour (after a certain minimum number of years) was not possible at all. The European Court for Human Rights actually recently forced us to implement an early release possibility. I think a few years ago we also got a 30 year option (with early release after 20), because judges weren't willing to impose a life sentence due to the aforementioned reason. Also, 14/21 years is about 20-25% of one's life. I think that's quite a lot, really.

ordinary 10y ago

Prison sentences in the Netherlands for aren't imposed as punishment alone, not even mostly. They are primarily tools of prevention (including the prevention of recidivism). If a convicted criminal is no longer considered to be a threat to society what's the point of keeping them locked up? If longer sentences (longer than whatever they are) have not shown to reduce the crime rate through deterrent, why impose them? Prisons cost money.

kriro 10y ago
I feel like murder (or most major crimes really) is a very special case. I'd prefer a system where the default is a life sentence (a lifetime for a life feels just) but the option to release after n years if relatives/family of the victim agree to it. It's probably very impractical but would appeal most to my personal understanding of justice.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  And that goes back to OP's point. Many countries don't view prison as "just", but as a means for rehabilitation or crime-prevention.
  - kriro 10y ago
    I think it can very much be both. But I feel victims are underrepresented in the rehabilitation discussion. My inner moral compass says they should be involved and it shouldn't all be up to review boards. I'm fully aware that I have a somewhat naive worldview though (I'd expect most victims to understand if someone was rehabilitated and be willing to forgive)
- gpvos 10y ago
  One of the reasons we have a justice system instead of revenge and vendettas is that we hope to have progressed a bit past "a life for a life". That is also why we don't let the victims have influence over their release. As far as I'm concerned, there is indeed a punishment/revenge factor also in our current justice system, besides rehabilitation and keeping the streets safe from wrongdoers. That could lead to minimum sentences, especially for murder and even more so when it's premeditated. In general, I find that judges (in the Netherlands) strike an okay balance.
lisivka 10y ago
If I have proposition to kill someone else for money, e.g. $10M, for exchange of 7 years in comfortable Dutch prison, I will grab the money.
- eric_the_read 10y ago
  If the only reason you haven't murdered anyone is that you haven't been offered enough money, I'm genuinely concerned.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    It's just example. People are killing people for way smaller reasons. My price is very high, isn't? How much people live in Dutch? If Russians will send one killer for every key men in country, country will be their in just 12 years, while they lose nothing, because Dutch prison is much much more comfortable than a flat in Rostov. I see that in Ukraine right now.
- ordinary 10y ago
  Unlike in most other European countries, Dutch law allows for life imprisonment without parole, from which only a royal pardon can save you. Since 1970, 43 people have been convicted, 2 of whom were eventually pardoned, both because of terminal illness. A quick glance through the recent list of convictions[1] shows that most life sentences were imposed in cases of multiple homicide, homicide for financial gain and homicide related to organized crime. In addition, convicts may be involuntarily committed when their sentence is over (and often before). This is aimed at rehabilitation, but can be extended indefinitely. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_tot_levenslang_veroordeelden_in_Nederland#Na_1970 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_tot_levenslang_veroo... (in Dutch)
  - lisivka 10y ago
    OK, thank you. So I will not tell anybody that I did that by request of someone else, then serve 12 years and will be free and with money, unless my mother will come in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Mercader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Mercader (in English).

michaelt 10y ago

To me, going in at age 20 and coming out at age 34-41 seems like a pretty big chunk of your life gone?

charlesdm 10y ago
It is, I'm not saying it's not. But the other person is dead and gone forever? Imagine if someone killed your wife/child/brother/mother/etc. Does that seem like a correct punishment? I'm not talking about accidents (e.g. a car crash), but premeditated murder? I personally think the length of that punishment is not in line with the crime. But hey, I'm getting downvoted to hell, so I guess most people think it is.
- adwn 10y ago
  > I personally think the length of that punishment is not in line with the crime. But hey, I'm getting downvoted to hell, so I guess most people think it is. You're getting downvoted because you treat imprisonment as vengeance, as paying back a debt that is owed to the victim's family. The more reasonable approach is to use imprisonment as a tool which prevents future crimes by the perpetrator and other potential criminals (through rehabilitation and deterrence). This yields better results and higher benefits to society as a whole, even if it might not be as emotionally satisfying to the victim's family.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    For most crimes, I definitely agree that imprisonment should be a tool to prevent further crime. In most cases, genuinely punishing someone for (stupid) mistakes (s)he has made is unproductive for society. But murder seems like a very specific situation (to me at least) where someone has crossed the line. Can one really come back from murder? Would you be comfortable spending time with someone you know who has cold-bloodedly killed another human being? I know I wouldn't. And I'm generally a person who is pretty open about most things.
    - lagadu 10y ago

lagadu 10y ago

> A life isn't worth a lot anymore these days.. Seems you're the one who isn't giving much value to the prisoner's life here. If rehabilitation can't be accomplished in 14 years, it won't be accomplished in 20 or 30 either so what's the point of keeping them inside an arbitrary number of years after that? edit: I just noticed you referred to imprisonment as punishment on another thread; that's where we differ in belief.

lisivka 10y ago
The point is that they cannot harm us while in prison.