> I have a slightly unpopular stance that death penalty is appropriate if there is overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer. I don't see any value in keep

> I have a slightly unpopular stance that death penalty is appropriate if there is overwhelming evidence of an unrepentant killer. I don't see any value in keeping them around in prison, especially if they will continue to have a negative influence on peers in prison for decades. This isn't an unreasonable thought, but (a) I would prefer to have a bright-line international rule that that killing prisoners is always unacceptable to make it easier to condemn countries that use it to violate human rights and (b) in the American system, the death penalty inevitably leads to more time and expensive of appeals, more publicity for the convict, and more expensive than life sentences. And I agree that life sentences are really just death by another, longer means. I would also reserve them for the most extreme cases, where you are really convinced that someone will never be able to live in society again without causing serious harm. There are definitely some cases out there that meet that, but many nevertheless tragic cases that don't. Even them I'm not sure that there is any need for "life without" as the whole purpose of a parole board is to make these decisions--if the individual continues to behave poorly in prison and does not accept responsibility, he will not get parole.