Should life imprisonment without parole be abolished?

[TDAS04]

The death penalty should never be an option.  Life imprisonment without parole should be, but only for the most heinous crimes, and should never be applied to juveniles.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

As I said in other thread:

I'm not really sure we should be removing the death penalty unless we fully commit to actually rehabilitating prisoners instead of just caging them for years on end. Life in prison should only be used very sparingly, and solitary confinement should be abolished for all situations except temporary (weeks) use.

I don't understand why people can be so against the death penalty but then shrug at life in prison. Can you imagine being locked up in your 20s or even 30s for life? I know a couple people who have spent time in prison/jail (albeit not max security, as they were not violent), and they both say it's hell. So at that point you might as well just kill the person, and if humans didn't have such a powerful self-preservation instinct embedded in their psyche, they'd probably opt for that too. Life in prison / extended solitary confinement is torture.

If society demands life in prison or death, then you're not really doing the convict a favor by giving life in prison. That's the more inhumane option between the two.

You're making (as usual) very valuable points. Life imprisonment can be considered more severe than execution, so there's no suprise many prisoners either ask for the death penalty or, if already sentenced, drops their remaining appeals to just get over with this. This man is a very good example. He actually killed while in prison, so he can get a death sentence.

Are there people beyond rehabilitation? Yes. Are there people just too dangerous to ever let loose? Yes. But they does not represent the full picture.

Putting people in jail en masse, especially for lesser offenses, does not benefit the society. It more frequently turns redeemable individuals into more dangerous criminals, not to mention the great burden on the taxpayers to keep overcrowded prisons running.

As of more serious offender, I'm inclined to favor the Norwegian system. The maximum sentence is 20 years, but can be extended if an individual is deemed too dangerous to be released (that's why, despite right-wing screams, Breivik is very unlikely to ever get out). Their main focus is on rehabilitation and they get better results on this field than "let's put more people in jail" systems.

So absolutely, opposing the death penalty while turning a blind eye on stuffing prisons with people is at least inconsistent.

[RightBehind]

No. End the death penalty.

[NeverAgain]

Yes. (Extremely Pro-Life). I believe no one (NO ONE) should be in prison for the rest of their lives, I enjoy the quote from the Norwegian Prison Warden who said "It is not only my job to reform these criminals, it is my duty to my family and my neighbors. We have no death penalty and they will all get out of here, so I must make sure they will never commit their crimes again for not only the betterment of society, but also for myself."

I think our goal has to be complete rehabilitation. I think we get caught up in punishment and that only supports criminals committing crimes more and more if released. When given life sentences they have NOTHING to lose and are much more likely to cause riots, kill other prisoners, etc.

Our current prison system is Mesopotamian/Hammurabian; we must focus on fair treatment or else we become no different than criminals.

[Virginiá]

Yes. (Extremely Pro-Life). I believe no one (NO ONE) should be in prison for the rest of their lives, I enjoy the quote from the Norwegian Prison Warden who said "It is not only my job to reform these criminals, it is my duty to my family and my neighbors. We have no death penalty and they will all get out of here, so I must make sure they will never commit their crimes again for not only the betterment of society, but also for myself."

I think our goal has to be complete rehabilitation. I think we get caught up in punishment and that only supports criminals committing crimes more and more if released. When given life sentences they have NOTHING to lose and are much more likely to cause riots, kill other prisoners, etc.

Our current prison system is Mesopotamian/Hammurabian; we must focus on fair treatment or else we become no different than criminals.

I wholeheartedly agree.

This country has been obsessed with punishment for far too long. There is very little focus on true rehabilitation. We just shove our undesirables into cages and forget about them, then when they get released from prison after years of only knowing the mundane, highly-controlled environment of prison, we label them felons, greatly hurting their ability to find places to live and work, and then we blame them for screwing up again.. As if we expected some other result?

Life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment. Why don't we actually try and rehabilitate these people? Treat them fairly in prison while trying everything we can to actually change them and prepare them for life again on the outside. Do we do that? *@(! no. This country is hyper-focused on retribution/revenge against criminals. In what world is sentencing, say, a 25 year old to life in prison better than death? You've sentenced a young adult to live in a violent environment / a cage for the next 50 - 60 years of their life. That is insanely cruel, especially considering how liberal this country is with handing out long/excessive prison sentences.

Honestly, and I don't care how mean this sounds, but I don't really buy it when people tell me they are against the death penalty but fine with life in prison, because execution is cruel and evil or whatever. I think they are against the death penalty to make themselves feel better for any number of reasons, because life (or close to it) in prison is far worse in terms of suffering. Perhaps such people think they are being merciful, but they are not.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment. Why don't we actually try and rehabilitate these people? Treat them fairly in prison while trying everything we can to actually change them and prepare them for life again on the outside. Do we do that? *@(! no. This country is hyper-focused on retribution/revenge against criminals. In what world is sentencing, say, a 25 year old to life in prison better than death? You've sentenced a young adult to live in a violent environment / a cage for the next 50 - 60 years of their life. That is insanely cruel, especially considering how liberal this country is with handing out long/excessive prison sentences.

What's even worse is that in some states you can still get a freaking life without parole for committing three same offences, even if they are relatively minor. A sad, sad product of 80s/90s "tough on crime" madness. Scoring political points destroyed thousands of redeemable lives and haven't  benefited the society in the slightest.

OK, the next example may be a bit archaic, but I can't help being remained of a case in 1950s Alabama, where a Black handyman was sentenced to death for stealing an amount of like $2. The state qualified it as robbery and it was punishable to death. Due to an international uproar over the sentence, Jim Folsom commuted his sentence to life (in Alabama, that's all a Governor can do). He was later paroled, but still, a life for this?

Some people haven't really grown up since those times.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i'd like to draw a small but important distinction: are we talking about "life imprisonment without parole" or "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole"?

[RFayette]

Yes, but keep the death penalty and use it more instead.

[RFayette]

i'd like to draw a small but important distinction: are we talking about "life imprisonment without parole" or "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole"?

When the sentence is imposed, it's almost certainly the latter.  In some places though, parole meant very little.  For instance, Texas used to allow all convicted of capital murder who were spared the death penalty eligibility for parole with their life sentences, but they almost never got parole. 

[TDAS04]

i'd like to draw a small but important distinction: are we talking about "life imprisonment without parole" or "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole"?

The question involves life imprisonment without parole.

Anyway, to respond to a couple of the above posts, what would you do if you could determine the fate of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?  Life without parole should only be available to the worst of the worst, but those people exist.

To the point that someone can't be anti-death penalty and pro-life imprisonment, yes, being locked up for life is harsh (which is why I don't understand the strong conservative support for the death penalty), but one key difference is that death carries finality.  If the convicted is later proven innocent, it's too late.  I support life imprisonment in certain cases on the condition that it can still be overturned upon finding evidence for innocence, and at least the prisoner has the rest of his/her natural life for this.  Also, life is less harsh on the convicted's family than death is.

I don't think long prison terms should be handed out as lightly as they are in the US, and prisons should be fairly humane, but the worst of the worst people should locked up for good.  They may not even deserve to live, but life and death is where I don't think the state should be allowed to determine someone's fate.  

Yes, but keep the death penalty and use it more instead.

That'll be great.  More incentive to hand out the death penalty, and more executions of innocent people.

[RFayette]

Yes, but keep the death penalty and use it more instead.

That'll be great.  More incentive to hand out the death penalty, and more executions of innocent people.

If someone is innocent, they're far more likely to get acquitted if they are sentenced to death than with a life-without-parole sentence, given the large public media attention and appeal opportunities in capital cases.  LWOP is basically a death sentence, anyway. 

[TDAS04]

Yes, but keep the death penalty and use it more instead.

That'll be great.  More incentive to hand out the death penalty, and more executions of innocent people.

If someone is innocent, they're far more likely to get acquitted if they are sentenced to death than with a life-without-parole sentence, given the large public media attention and appeal opportunities in capital cases.  LWOP is basically a death sentence, anyway. 

Fair point.  I would allow more appeal opportunities in long prison sentences than they currently allow.

[Goldwater]

TBH, I would support abolishing life imprisonment but keeping the death penalty.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyway, to respond to a couple of the above posts, what would you do if you could determine the fate of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?  Life without parole should only be available to the worst of the worst, but those people exist.

We're talking about life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Some people are obviously not fit to be released either because their crimes were just too grave (as examples you gave) or because they are too dangerous. But they are not a majority of cases.

[RFayette]

Anyway, to respond to a couple of the above posts, what would you do if you could determine the fate of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?  Life without parole should only be available to the worst of the worst, but those people exist.

We're talking about life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Some people are obviously not fit to be released either because their crimes were just too grave (as examples you gave) or because they are too dangerous. But they are not a majority of cases.

This is fair.  As long as there's a culture on the parole board that certain criminals should never be allowed to go free, then there won't be much of a problem with giving a life sentence with the possibility of parole for a serial murderer.  Parole rules differ state-by-state and country-by-country.  For instance, in Greece, the maximum amount of a life sentence is 21 years, after which they are automatically paroled.  Needless to say, that's very different than the parole regimes in many other states.

[Ebowed]

I support the abolition of both, particularly capital punishment which I consider murder.  Another important issue is that prison generally needs serious systemic reforms to ensure that it is humane and used more judiciously.

[NeverAgain]

Anyway, to respond to a couple of the above posts, what would you do if you could determine the fate of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?  Life without parole should only be available to the worst of the worst, but those people exist.

We're talking about life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Some people are obviously not fit to be released either because their crimes were just too grave (as examples you gave) or because they are too dangerous. But they are not a majority of cases.

This is fair.  As long as there's a culture on the parole board that certain criminals should never be allowed to go free, then there won't be much of a problem with giving a life sentence with the possibility of parole for a serial murderer.  Parole rules differ state-by-state and country-by-country.  For instance, in Greece, the maximum amount of a life sentence is 21 years, after which they are automatically paroled.  Needless to say, that's very different than the parole regimes in many other states.

I think if we have a goal of rehabilitation we should have parole for all criminals. I think we need to make a federal parole law and have them accurately judge mental health and have they actually been rehabilitated. I think the start of this is with Drug Reform and then work our way up to the entire criminal justice system. No one should be in prison for the rest of their lives if they do not continue to possess the ability to harm or endanger others, and that's what parole boards need to be  in charge of.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I support the abolition of both, particularly capital punishment which I consider murder.  Another important issue is that prison generally needs serious systemic reforms to ensure that it is humane and used more judiciously.

x1000 the most important issue in America

[Mr. Reactionary]

When would Charles Manson get released?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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.

That being said, the list of crimes that qualify for life imprisonment should be decreased, drug crimes should be struck entirely from it, and consecutive sentences should never be allowed to essentially equal a life sentence.

[RFayette]

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.

That being said, the list of crimes that qualify for life imprisonment should be decreased, drug crimes should be struck entirely from it, and consecutive sentences should never be allowed to essentially equal a life sentence.

This is a far bigger problem than life-without-parole sentences, which are only really given for first-degree murder in most states.  When I hear about someone getting 250 years or whatever, I wish we just made a determination whether or not the person deserves the death penalty instead.

I still prefer death penalty to life-without-parole in those extreme cases, but otherwise I think the maximum sentence should be about 40 years.   

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Some violent criminals need to be removed permanently. I would prefer to keep life without, but in absence of such a thing we at least retain the benefit of strict parole boards. Just look at what happened with Charles Manson; when the death penalty was temporarily overturned in California, his sentence was commuted from death to life with possibility of parole. The boards have kept him in ever since.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yes. (Extremely Pro-Life). I believe no one (NO ONE) should be in prison for the rest of their lives, I enjoy the quote from the Norwegian Prison Warden who said "It is not only my job to reform these criminals, it is my duty to my family and my neighbors. We have no death penalty and they will all get out of here, so I must make sure they will never commit their crimes again for not only the betterment of society, but also for myself."

I think our goal has to be complete rehabilitation. I think we get caught up in punishment and that only supports criminals committing crimes more and more if released. When given life sentences they have NOTHING to lose and are much more likely to cause riots, kill other prisoners, etc.

Our current prison system is Mesopotamian/Hammurabian; we must focus on fair treatment or else we become no different than criminals.

I wholeheartedly agree.

This country has been obsessed with punishment for far too long. There is very little focus on true rehabilitation. We just shove our undesirables into cages and forget about them, then when they get released from prison after years of only knowing the mundane, highly-controlled environment of prison, we label them felons, greatly hurting their ability to find places to live and work, and then we blame them for screwing up again.. As if we expected some other result?

Life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment. Why don't we actually try and rehabilitate these people? Treat them fairly in prison while trying everything we can to actually change them and prepare them for life again on the outside. Do we do that? *@(! no. This country is hyper-focused on retribution/revenge against criminals. In what world is sentencing, say, a 25 year old to life in prison better than death? You've sentenced a young adult to live in a violent environment / a cage for the next 50 - 60 years of their life. That is insanely cruel, especially considering how liberal this country is with handing out long/excessive prison sentences.

Honestly, and I don't care how mean this sounds, but I don't really buy it when people tell me they are against the death penalty but fine with life in prison, because execution is cruel and evil or whatever. I think they are against the death penalty to make themselves feel better for any number of reasons, because life (or close to it) in prison is far worse in terms of suffering. Perhaps such people think they are being merciful, but they are not.

The counter to that is that it is possible for people to value and find meaning in their lives even in the midst of suffering.  So there is more suffering involved in life in prison, but the death penalty could be considered a greater, ultimate deprivation.  That suggests of course that we need to make prison a place that while not easy or desirable to go to, a place where people can live out there lives in some meaningful fashion.  I imagine we could design and run prisons in a way that is much more conducive to peace and productivity and personal development.  But that would require a lot of changes, which means a lot of money. And as long as we locking up so many people, we are stuck in a more short-sighted cycle in terms of how we have to fund criminal justice.

[Frodo]

There are some criminals who personify evil, and we should keep them locked away from the rest of society for as long as they still live.  

And I think there are some here who are taking the era of low crime rates a bit too much for granted...  

[Rick Grimes]

option three the death penalty should be used and kept there are alot of bads in the world.