3 ms·

> As many of them acknowledge, they have been rightly punished for a long time. But, ask yourself as you watch the video, how long is long enough? I am of the

> As many of them acknowledge, they have been rightly punished for a long time. But, ask yourself as you watch the video, how long is long enough? I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society. I get that people want closure/revenge, and understand that. I'm sure I would feel the same in many cases. But ... it just doesn't help anything. And sure there's an argument for it being preventative (don't do the crime or you'll do the time), but lots of studies have shown that's has little validity. > None of us want to be defined solely by the person we were in our youth, or by the worst thing we ever did. The men serving life without parole feel the same way. Fair, but if it's likely that you're the type of person that _will_ do catastrophic harm to society again if you get out, then there's a fair argument that you should not be out.

gruez 8mo ago
>I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society. How do you know whether a murderer won't be a repeat murderer?
- dmitrygr 8mo ago
  statistically, recidivism is extremely common. For the benefit of the innocent, the guilty should be kept in prisons. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/returning-prison-0 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/returning-prison-0 https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/sex_offense_recidivism_2019.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/sex_offense_recidivism_2... https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-prisoners-to-re-offend/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/ https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/the-case-for-incarceration/ https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/the-case-for-incarcerat... https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/recidivism-and-reentry https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/recidivism-and-reentry
- RHSeeger 8mo ago
  > How do you know whether a murderer won't be a repeat murderer? I don't know. I just don't believe "but he hasn't paid for his crime _enough_" isn't helpful.
  - gruez 8mo ago
    >I just don't believe "but he hasn't paid for his crime _enough_" isn't helpful. No, there are justifications/benefits to keeping people imprisoned beyond "paying for his crime". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology)
    - RHSeeger 8mo ago
      Thank you for... agreeing with me? I didn't say there weren't reasons for imprisonment. I said that "he hasn't paid for his crime enough" is not a good reason.
lich_king 8mo ago
> I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society. Sure, but general deterrence benefits the society, too. Case in point: for many years, California effectively decriminalized petty theft, and it caused a lot of grief to normal people. That's an argument for harsher punishment: even if most shoplifters / porch pirates / smash-and-grab people are not hardened criminals, you want to send a message to anyone contemplating that lifestyle. To give another example: almost no one gets behind the wheel with the intent to kill. But if you severely punish drunk / negligent driving, more people will pause before doing it.
- RHSeeger 8mo ago
  That's a fair statement, and I agree in general. I guess my stance is more that "more time" time not really help much with that. I'm sure there's a connection, but it's not linear.
knowitnone3 8mo ago
[dead]
BrandoElFollito 8mo ago
> then there's a fair argument that you should not be out. Better kill them, then. Their stay in prison will not help them, and there will be less costs and risks.

gruez 8mo ago

dmitrygr 8mo ago
statistically, recidivism is extremely common. For the benefit of the innocent, the guilty should be kept in prisons. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/returning-prison-0 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/returning-prison-0 https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/sex_offense_recidivism_2019.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/sex_offense_recidivism_2... https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-prisoners-to-re-offend/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/ https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/the-case-for-incarceration/ https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/the-case-for-incarcerat... https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/recidivism-and-reentry https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/recidivism-and-reentry
RHSeeger 8mo ago
> How do you know whether a murderer won't be a repeat murderer? I don't know. I just don't believe "but he hasn't paid for his crime _enough_" isn't helpful.
- gruez 8mo ago
  >I just don't believe "but he hasn't paid for his crime _enough_" isn't helpful. No, there are justifications/benefits to keeping people imprisoned beyond "paying for his crime". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology)
  - RHSeeger 8mo ago
    Thank you for... agreeing with me? I didn't say there weren't reasons for imprisonment. I said that "he hasn't paid for his crime enough" is not a good reason.

lich_king 8mo ago

> I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society. Sure, but general deterrence benefits the society, too. Case in point: for many years, California effectively decriminalized petty theft, and it caused a lot of grief to normal people. That's an argument for harsher punishment: even if most shoplifters / porch pirates / smash-and-grab people are not hardened criminals, you want to send a message to anyone contemplating that lifestyle. To give another example: almost no one gets behind the wheel with the intent to kill. But if you severely punish drunk / negligent driving, more people will pause before doing it.

RHSeeger 8mo ago
That's a fair statement, and I agree in general. I guess my stance is more that "more time" time not really help much with that. I'm sure there's a connection, but it's not linear.

knowitnone3 8mo ago

[dead]

BrandoElFollito 8mo ago

> then there's a fair argument that you should not be out. Better kill them, then. Their stay in prison will not help them, and there will be less costs and risks.