Is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole cruel and unusual?

[TNF]

Option 3 for me.

[RogueBeaver]

Non.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Literally, yes.

[Goldwater]

Nope.

[ElectionsGuy]

Not really, lets say the death penalty is illegal, and something like the Ariel Castro case happens. You're going to say "life in prison is cruel and unusual"? It seems to me to be pure non-sense. We can argue about what laws broken should grant x amount of prison time, but if someone breaks a certain amount of laws and gets a certain amount of time so be it. This is part of the sympathy section of the left. If you think about it, letting a prisoner out on parole is no different then letting an illegal citizen free with regulations.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 3 for me.

Literally, yes.

So a man who repeatedly rapes and kills women should be allowed out of prison or a mental hospital after, say, twenty years?

If you are talking about prison only, I can respect and disagree with your logic. But do you guys oppose lifetime institutionalization of those who cannot be rehabilitated?

[TDAS04]

No.

[Donerail]

Option 3 for me.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 3 for me.

Do you support life institutionalization of those repeat offenders who cannot be rehabilitated though?

[Maxwell]

No.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No

[© tweed]

imprisonment itself is cruel and unusual.

[minionofmidas]

Rightly listed in the Carolina among methods of execution.

[Donerail]

Option 3 for me.

Do you support life institutionalization of those repeat offenders who cannot be rehabilitated though?

I highly doubt that there are very many if any offenders who cannot be rehabilitated. I would support a requirement that would allow a court to extend sentences in the event that they determine a prisoner is still considered a violent danger to society, to be reviewed yearly to ensure that they still are.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 3 for me.

Do you support life institutionalization of those repeat offenders who cannot be rehabilitated though?

I highly doubt that there are very many if any offenders who cannot be rehabilitated. I would support a requirement that would allow a court to extend sentences in the event that they determine a prisoner is still considered a violent danger to society, to be reviewed yearly to ensure that they still are.

There are not many people who cannot be rehabilitated. But the Ariel Castro's of the world do exist, and they are not always insane. Some people are just flat out evil.

[Redalgo]

Yes - it has to be option one for me. The argument made by Sanchez in this thread is my reason for not ruling out life imprisonment altogether. Though I reckon everybody has some goodness in them and can be "saved," I do not believe everybody wants to be saved or necessarily will be in spite of even exhaustive, well-intentioned attempts at rehabilitation.

As for Tweed's remark, I agree. The humane response to crime is reforms in public policy and rehab for the perps - not punishment. Some cruelty can be necessary and proper in regards to limitations placed on individual liberty via imprisonment for the sake of the perp and public alike. It is not an outcome I am happy with, but I cannot think of a better way to respond when rights get violated.

[© tweed]

Father Zossima advocated excommunication from the Church as a punishment for criminals.

[Sol]

1.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is not unusual (at least not in the sense that the framers intended) since it is a sentence which is regularly enacted.

It is however cruel, in most cases, in the sense that its main purpose is to inflict suffering (in some case life imprisonment might be seen as the only way to protect society from an individual who would pose a permanent threat to it, but these individuals, if they exists, would belong in psychiatric institutions instead).

I voted no, because you used "and" rather than "or".

[H. Ross Peron]

Hell no.

[barfbag]

Option 3 for me.

So all you're trying to say is that if someone murdered your parents, children, spouse, or a sibling, then you'd go to court to fight against their murderer going to prison for life. You'd want them out in a few years? If that's all you're telling us then you didn't have to make a post for it. Presidents like Obama are cruel and unusual punishment.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So how do we handle these people?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Father Zossima advocated excommunication from the Church as a punishment for criminals.

Father Zosima is a fantastic character, but it's hard to make that work the way it's supposed to in an almost entirely secularized society.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It probably is cruel and unusual. That doesn't mean I don't think it's right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Option 3 for me.

Literally, yes.

So a man who repeatedly rapes and kills women should be allowed out of prison or a mental hospital after, say, twenty years?

If you are talking about prison only, I can respect and disagree with your logic. But do you guys oppose lifetime institutionalization of those who cannot be rehabilitated?

I made no comment on what sort of penal policies that I think are or are not suitable. I merely pointed out the obvious: that a life term without the possibility of parole is, of course, cruel; and is also - and by definition - unusual.