4 ms·

I agree that our legal system, in fact our general culture, views justice through the eyes of punishment, and I think it's unfortunate, though even punishment s

I agree that our legal system, in fact our general culture, views justice through the eyes of punishment, and I think it's unfortunate, though even punishment should be viewed as a way to bring about correction. And the death penalty for sure is about retribution for the most part. But there are so many cases of murderers who both have killed many outside and continue to murder and assault inside, and they seemingly will continue to be a threat to society. With our current abilities, what do you propose we do to either rehabilitate or protect others from those kinds of folks? Also, justice is also about repaying a debt. But how can someone ever repay something they've stolen if what they've stolen is priceless and can't be replaced? Like it or not, some families do want that to be repaid with the killer no longer being allowed to live the rest of his life. I'm not agreeing that's right, but in any direction, there are going to be flaws. And I do think there are cases of incontrovertible evidence (I mean, do we really think Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez were coerced into confessing? They're basically proud of what they've done). But I think it's a matter of setting the bar higher for requirements. Lastly, in those cases where there is a lot of cost of going back and forth, at least some small part of that is also caused by activists who believe on ideological grounds that the state should never take a life, even if the murderer would prefer death. I'm not claiming that makes a large statistical portion of it, but to me the cost factor really is the least important aspect of the discussion when we're talking about people's lives. I do think the US would benefit from some of Norway's policies, but (and I think it was Norway where even murder didn't come with a life sentence; correct me if I'm wrong) some of them, culturally seem abhorrent to us in that it's possible to murder and steal a life, but then be able to walk around free because some bureaucrat says he's fine now. I think both systems allow for possible abuse and injustice, but it does seem to work for you guys. I'm also of the belief that while I think humans all generally share a common set of ideals and virtues, policies that work in one society may not work in another.

lb1lf 8y ago
-As for current abilities, do keep in mind that my neck of the woods - Norway - is rather peaceful in the grand scheme of things; we average some 30-odd murders a year among a population of some 5M. In roughly 80% of the murders the murder and the victim had some relation - family, friends - so random murders are, overall, pretty rare. This probably helps keep the recidivism rate low; the average murderer - to paraphrase a long-term official at our criminal police - is an average guy who've just had the worst moment of his life, killing someone he loved and cared about. You wouldn't be all that likely to find yourself in similar circumstances again. I've tried to dig up statistics on how many people in Norway have been convicted of murder more than once - I couldn't find any, though I seem to recall having heard of two or three. With these circumstances as a starting point, rehabilitation is probably more beneficial to society than going for the all-in punishment experience - once enough time is served that society feels you've paid for your crime, to some extent, there really isn't much to be gained from keeping you locked up anymore. To reflect this, the maximum prison term is 21 years (unless you're convicted of crimes against humanity, in which case the maximum is 30 years) To ease your way back into society, you're automatically eligible for parole once you've served 2/3 of the punishment committed, as long as you've behaved reasonably well in prison (unless you were considered particularly dangerous and likely to be a lasting danger to society, in which case you may get an indefinite sentence (with regular reviews, where parole is an option if circumstances change).) The last part of your mandatory sentence (that is, first 2/3) sees restrictions being gradually lifted - say, you get to live in halfway houses, take up a job/studies outside prison, having to return immediately to prison/halfway house once your work/lectures end. The idea, obviously, being to prepare you for return to society. Mostly this works; we've got a recidivism rate of some 20-25% or so for the whole imprisoned population; for murderers, it must be in the low single digits. I do, however, appreciate that this approach works better with 'our' kind of murderers - people who've committed one murder and are unlikely to ever commit another. Oh, and don't get me wrong - cost shouldn't be the overriding concern; I was more thinking the opposite - that if one wanted to eliminate a criminal from society for good, capital punishment doesn't even make economical sense - other solutions are just as effective, cheaper and allowing for the state to admit its mistake to the wrongfully convicted rather than to his bereaved. Manson et al are - I hope - outliers in the US, too - so the challenge is designing a system which 'works' on the majority of people deemed unfit to walk free, without degenerating into a system designed to handle the Mansonitic minority. You do bring up some interesting thoughts; I'll probably end up pondering your points repeatedly throughout the weekend. I love HN!

lb1lf 8y ago

-As for current abilities, do keep in mind that my neck of the woods - Norway - is rather peaceful in the grand scheme of things; we average some 30-odd murders a year among a population of some 5M. In roughly 80% of the murders the murder and the victim had some relation - family, friends - so random murders are, overall, pretty rare. This probably helps keep the recidivism rate low; the average murderer - to paraphrase a long-term official at our criminal police - is an average guy who've just had the worst moment of his life, killing someone he loved and cared about. You wouldn't be all that likely to find yourself in similar circumstances again. I've tried to dig up statistics on how many people in Norway have been convicted of murder more than once - I couldn't find any, though I seem to recall having heard of two or three. With these circumstances as a starting point, rehabilitation is probably more beneficial to society than going for the all-in punishment experience - once enough time is served that society feels you've paid for your crime, to some extent, there really isn't much to be gained from keeping you locked up anymore. To reflect this, the maximum prison term is 21 years (unless you're convicted of crimes against humanity, in which case the maximum is 30 years) To ease your way back into society, you're automatically eligible for parole once you've served 2/3 of the punishment committed, as long as you've behaved reasonably well in prison (unless you were considered particularly dangerous and likely to be a lasting danger to society, in which case you may get an indefinite sentence (with regular reviews, where parole is an option if circumstances change).) The last part of your mandatory sentence (that is, first 2/3) sees restrictions being gradually lifted - say, you get to live in halfway houses, take up a job/studies outside prison, having to return immediately to prison/halfway house once your work/lectures end. The idea, obviously, being to prepare you for return to society. Mostly this works; we've got a recidivism rate of some 20-25% or so for the whole imprisoned population; for murderers, it must be in the low single digits. I do, however, appreciate that this approach works better with 'our' kind of murderers - people who've committed one murder and are unlikely to ever commit another. Oh, and don't get me wrong - cost shouldn't be the overriding concern; I was more thinking the opposite - that if one wanted to eliminate a criminal from society for good, capital punishment doesn't even make economical sense - other solutions are just as effective, cheaper and allowing for the state to admit its mistake to the wrongfully convicted rather than to his bereaved. Manson et al are - I hope - outliers in the US, too - so the challenge is designing a system which 'works' on the majority of people deemed unfit to walk free, without degenerating into a system designed to handle the Mansonitic minority. You do bring up some interesting thoughts; I'll probably end up pondering your points repeatedly throughout the weekend. I love HN!