Should life imprisonment without parole be abolished?

[Ebowed]

Anyone who opposes life imprisonment should have to detail what they think the appropriate sentences for various notorious mass murderers and when they should be released back into society.

The question here specifically relates to the sentence of life imprisonment without parole.  Even some of the most noxious criminals could be released after a lengthy sentence without risking the safety of others.  To categorically deny this option during sentencing provides a dis-incentive to the offender to rehabilitate.

[nclib]

Option 2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would imagine the number of people executed who would become life in prison is lower than the number of people in prison for life for non-violent offenses such as drugs.

[RaphaelDLG]

1) the death penalty is bad on moral, financial, and statistical grounds.  It's not the 1600s any more, so we don't have people who are too dangerous to be kept alive.

2) there are a minority of criminals who are sociopaths/bad by their nature and there's really no way to rehabilitate them.  Therefore, we need life without parole.  Those people should be identified using a scientific process and locked up permanently without being given PlayStations or other ridiculous bullsh**t and kept in Spartan, non torturous conditions.  They can euthanize themselves if they'd like.

3) a sizeable majority of criminals are capable of being rehabilitated and the united states does an awful job at identifying and reintegrating these people.   It'd have to be through a very discerning, evidence based sentencing placement into this rehabilitatable group (I.e., someone who commits a crime of desperation or passion as opposed to someone who is a cold blooded murderer or attracted to 8 yos), then giving aggressive financial incentives to employers, maintaining strong community ties during imprisonment and ensuring reintegration, and educating the living sh**t out of prisoners and making it so going to prison is basically like going to college or technical school.

4) some crimes are better punished outside of prison (opioid abuse, compounding fines to give obvious examples)

[Mercenary]

No it shouldn't. While we should attempt to rehabilitate criminals there are many who cannot be and someone who say is capable of murder raping an innocent person is no someone I would want released back into the public. I wouldn't want some kind of uniform sentencing that applies to everyone regardless the specifics of the case, but in general I would prefer life without parole for the majority of murderers/rapists.

Death penalty should be abolished not because I have any moral issue with a murderer being put to death but because I oppose the state having the power to put people to death and there is always the possibility the person is innocent.

[Goldwater]

I never got the "the state shouldn't have the power to kill people" argument against the death penalty. In that case, we shouldn't have a military either, and cops shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. Everybody, even the worst criminal, deserves a chance to redeem themselves.

[TDAS04]

I never got the "the state shouldn't have the power to kill people" argument against the death penalty. In that case, we shouldn't have a military either, and cops shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

There is a difference between defense and killing someone in your custody.

Yes. Everybody, even the worst criminal, deserves a chance to redeem themselves.

Even those who commit mass murder or genocide?  Some people are bad enough that releasing them after a few decades doesn't seem right.  Maybe if people lived for eternity, you'd have a point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. Everybody, even the worst criminal, deserves a chance to redeem themselves.

Even those who commit mass murder or genocide?  Some people are bad enough that releasing them after a few decades doesn't seem right.  Maybe if people lived for eternity, you'd have a point.

Theoretically, yes. Of course, the standard for what constitutes redemption should be proportional to the gravity of the crime, which in those cases would make it almost impossible. But the possibility exists and it ought to be preserved.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I never got the "the state shouldn't have the power to kill people" argument against the death penalty. In that case, we shouldn't have a military either, and cops shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

There is a difference between defense and killing someone in your custody.

     Yeah, this. Death row inmates escaping is a scary idea, but one that really doesn't happen. Keeping the worst offenders under lock and key so they can never commit crimes again is something we do well. At that point, protecting society is not an applicable argument for killing them, as it is for soldiers fighting in a war or police confronting a criminal at large.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Where's the replace with the death penalty option? 😈

[Boston Bread]

Yes, everyone has a chance of being rehabilitated.

[Mr. Jew]

Most definitely.  A lifetime of prison sodomy has to be a Human Rights abuse.  Just saying.

[Spark]

Voted No, but abolish the death penalty

[RINO Tom]

I'm sorry, but an argument for NEVER allowing life without parole is just sappy and overly idealistic.  There are people who are so manipulative it's almost unbelievable, and there are crimes that are straight-up unforgivable (i.e., no amount of time spent in a jail cell can atone for those actions, at least not to the point where the criminal should walk free), and I do not want the only thing keeping those people off the streets to be the savviness of the parole board.

[Human]

Life imprisoment should be used extremely rarely.