5 ms·

Thanks a lot. Article carefully avoids mentioning why these individuals had received lifetime sentences. I assume their murder victims didn't get "second chanc

• cltby 4y ago
  • throwaway5959 4y ago
    What if they murdered murderers? Wouldn’t their actions make you safer, if safety is your priority?
    • cltby 4y ago
      Yes, I would happily reconsider in this case.
  • t-3 4y ago
    > Perhaps they’ll make suitable service workers, but future physicists these are not. How do you know that?
    • cltby 4y ago
      • t-3 4y ago
        No, they have not. They've been convicted of crimes. Nothing about their intellectual ability or "capacity for cruelty or sadism" can be inferred from that.
      • boeingUH60 4y ago
        Cruelty/Sadism and intellectual prowess aren't mutually exclusive. From my high school days...I remember some really smart people who were atrocious bullies, and I mean extreme bullies.
        • inglor_cz 4y ago
          Famously, Göring scored 138 and another prominent Nazi, Arthur Seyß-Inquart, 141 on their IQ tests when incarcerated in Nuremberg. Both were sentenced to death later. That said, their case shows the principle that high-IQ psychopathic people tend not to end up among common criminals. They find other, legal or "legal" (as in "it was legal in Nazi Germany") ways to satisfy their urges.
          • throwaway5959 4y ago
            See also: CEOs and politicians in general
      • jen20 4y ago
        Perfect for software middle management then eh? Anyway, what about Hans Reiser? A convicted murderer, but one who could build an entire file system.
  • spoonjim 4y ago
    Their economic output has nothing to do with why they should be locked up until they die. If Elon Musk commits murder he should be locked up for the remainder of his natural life as should these lowlifes.
    • cltby 4y ago
      Agreed. Just want to preempt any arguments about incarceration “wasting their potential.”