Murder and Repentance

[Frodo]

This man never got it, so he took his own life:

Merciless End for a Long Island Cop Killer

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
OCT. 28, 2016

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

[RFayette]

I believe murder should be an automatic death penalty offense, but if they are serving a LWOP sentence and do show repentance, then yes I would favor some form of parole or commutation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The standard once one has served a reasonable period of confinement should not be do they show repentance but are they still danger to society.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The standard once one has served a reasonable period of confinement should not be do they show repentance but are they still danger to society.

Isn't that an even laxer standard? An unrepentant criminal might nonetheless not pose any danger, but someone who's genuinely repented will almost certainly not do it again.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.

[Murica!]

I'm not really sure why a cop killer should be treated any different than any other sort of murderer.

[RFayette]

I'm not really sure why a cop killer should be treated any different than any other sort of murderer.

I view killing a cop as a direct assault on the very practice of law enforcement or keeping the peace.  While I think all 1st-degree murder cases should merit an automatic death penalty, it seems even more plain that cop-killers should get that penalty.

[Murica!]

I'm not really sure why a cop killer should be treated any different than any other sort of murderer.

I view killing a cop as a direct assault on the very practice of law enforcement or keeping the peace.  While I think all 1st-degree murder cases should merit an automatic death penalty, it seems even more plain that cop-killers should get that penalty.

It doesn't strike you as slightly ironic to give the death penalty to murderers?

[Ban my account ffs!]

My favorite are idiot conservatives who rail and whine against hate crime legislation but want big increases in punishment for killing a cop.  Who has a gun.  Who knows the risk.

My answer is yes.  But because we can't see your mind or your heart it will take some time to be convinced.  And because it's murder they will be on parole for life.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.

I'm OK with having a very strict standard for what constitutes evidence of genuine repentance. Obviously, if you committed a crime, it makes sense that you lose the benefit of doubt. However, when this standard is met, the person should always be released.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This isn't the naughty rug at preschool. You don't get out once you've thought about what you've done.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This isn't the naughty rug at preschool. You don't get out once you've thought about what you've done.

Such insightful wisdom!

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This isn't the naughty rug at preschool. You don't get out once you've thought about what you've done.

Such insightful wisdom!

It's about all that "Should we let murderers out of prison if they're really sorry" deserves.

They were sentenced for ending their victim's life. As long as said victim is still dead, I don't see any reason to revisit that sentence.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This isn't the naughty rug at preschool. You don't get out once you've thought about what you've done.

Such insightful wisdom!

It's about all that "Should we let murderers out of prison if they're really sorry" deserves.

They were sentenced for ending their victim's life. As long as said victim is still dead, I don't see any reason to revisit that sentence.

That means you have a sadistic and barbaric vision of "justice".

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This isn't the naughty rug at preschool. You don't get out once you've thought about what you've done.

Such insightful wisdom!

It's about all that "Should we let murderers out of prison if they're really sorry" deserves.

They were sentenced for ending their victim's life. As long as said victim is still dead, I don't see any reason to revisit that sentence.

That means you have a sadistic and barbaric vision of "justice".

"Life sentences should actually mean life sentences" is now "sadistic and barbaric". You heard it here first, folks.

The radical left will keep on defining things down until anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a right-wing deplorable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This isn't the naughty rug at preschool. You don't get out once you've thought about what you've done.

Such insightful wisdom!

It's about all that "Should we let murderers out of prison if they're really sorry" deserves.

They were sentenced for ending their victim's life. As long as said victim is still dead, I don't see any reason to revisit that sentence.

That means you have a sadistic and barbaric vision of "justice".

"Life sentences should actually mean life sentences" is now "sadistic and barbaric". You heard it here first, folks.

The radical left will keep on defining things down until anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a right-wing deplorable.

Actual life sentences are inherently barbaric, yes.

[Cassius]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.

I'm OK with having a very strict standard for what constitutes evidence of genuine repentance. Obviously, if you committed a crime, it makes sense that you lose the benefit of doubt. However, when this standard is met, the person should always be released.

What would this standard of evidence be though? I mean, you can hardly look inside their mind to see whether the repentance is genuine or not, the only real evidence you have either way is a person's word. I mean, you could attempt to implement various 'lie detector' tests, but then I'm not sure how that would work with what is essentially a mentally internal matter like repentance.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.

I'm OK with having a very strict standard for what constitutes evidence of genuine repentance. Obviously, if you committed a crime, it makes sense that you lose the benefit of doubt. However, when this standard is met, the person should always be released.

What would this standard of evidence be though? I mean, you can hardly look inside their mind to see whether the repentance is genuine or not, the only real evidence you have either way is a person's word. I mean, you could attempt to implement various 'lie detector' tests, but then I'm not sure how that would work with what is essentially a mentally internal matter like repentance.

To add to what Cassius said, even if the offender is genuinely repentant, there is still the problem of backsliding. Pastors and priests hear the same confessions over and over again from the same people. A huge number of those backsliders aren't faking their repentance yet still screw up week after week. That backsliding may not be a big deal outside of the offender's family and friends when the sin is watching pornography, but it is when the offense is drunk driving or armed robbery.

[LLR]

Too easy to be faked, too much risk, etc.

A cautious no

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.

I'm OK with having a very strict standard for what constitutes evidence of genuine repentance. Obviously, if you committed a crime, it makes sense that you lose the benefit of doubt. However, when this standard is met, the person should always be released.

What would this standard of evidence be though? I mean, you can hardly look inside their mind to see whether the repentance is genuine or not, the only real evidence you have either way is a person's word. I mean, you could attempt to implement various 'lie detector' tests, but then I'm not sure how that would work with what is essentially a mentally internal matter like repentance.

To add to what Cassius said, even if the offender is genuinely repentant, there is still the problem of backsliding. Pastors and priests hear the same confessions over and over again from the same people. A huge number of those backsliders aren't faking their repentance yet still screw up week after week. That backsliding may not be a big deal outside of the offender's family and friends when the sin is watching pornography, but it is when the offense is drunk driving or armed robbery.

Unless the crime is addictive in nature (in which case what the person needs is treatment, not more punishment), backsliding is evidence that a person hasn't truly repented.

I'd say the evidence for genuine repentance is more than someone's word. When you look at how someone has behaved in jail over the past decades, that gives you a good indication (especially considering that the psychological, social and material incentives to behave badly in prison are so strong that you need to be pretty iron-willed NOT to cede to them).

And besides, can't people on parole be monitored? If they show signs of falling back, you can definitely put them back in jail.

[Mercenary]

No. If you take an innocent life intentionally then you sacrifice the right to live your life freely.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I mean there are cases where the details of the case might help suggest true repentance...such as if a man murders his wife because he finds her cheating (pretend he didn't find and kill her in the act...but killed her after confronting her later that day)...
This man might already get some leniency if he shows remorse to the court but I'd imagine he truly regrets what he did and might genuinely be repentant.

Maybe Badger could provide insight on that.