life prisoners and medical advances that prolong life

[dead0man]

Say in 20 years we figure out how to make humans be 27 for ever.  No deaths other than accidents/murder.  What do you do with prisoners serving life (or other extremely long prison term)?

[RFayette]

The longest time consecutively anyone's ever served in prison is 70 years according to Wikipedia.  Personally, in this hypothetical scenario, I'd just redefine a life sentence as 100 years and then have the death penalty as an option for jurors to consider.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Say in 20 years we figure out how to make humans be 27 for ever.  No deaths other than accidents/murder. 

I'm not sure we should do that.

[dead0man]

hopefully there will never be an entity that would force such things on people

[Sirius_]

I already support banning life sentences, and I'll support it even more when immortality becomes a thing (assuming we still have it by then).

[Sirius_]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

Exactly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

"Beyond reasonable doubt" implies a high enough standard for proof that we would release large numbers of people who we know are probably dangerous.

It is possible to keep an eye on former inmates who might or might not be dangerous through means less invasive than prison. This should be enough of a deterrent in most of the cases.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

"Beyond reasonable doubt" implies a high enough standard for proof that we would release large numbers of people who we know are probably dangerous.

It is possible to keep an eye on former inmates who might or might not be dangerous through means less invasive than prison. This should be enough of a deterrent in most of the cases.

So you support exporting the power of the prison into ordinary life?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

"Beyond reasonable doubt" implies a high enough standard for proof that we would release large numbers of people who we know are probably dangerous.

It is possible to keep an eye on former inmates who might or might not be dangerous through means less invasive than prison. This should be enough of a deterrent in most of the cases.

So you support exporting the power of the prison into ordinary life?

...I really don't think that's the right way to look at it.

[WritOfCertiorari]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

This was basically the old parole system of the United States.

[RFayette]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

"Beyond reasonable doubt" implies a high enough standard for proof that we would release large numbers of people who we know are probably dangerous.

It is possible to keep an eye on former inmates who might or might not be dangerous through means less invasive than prison. This should be enough of a deterrent in most of the cases.

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.   I think that the burden of proof has to lie on the defendant to show he has been rehabilitated after committing a very serious crime, not on society to let him out in the absence of overwhelming proof to the contrary. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

The interesting thing about this hypothetical is that weakens the utilitarian argument that often underpins this logic. Statistically most violent crime is done by young people, and beyond that it drops right down; so it stands to reason that there is less value in holding people in jail for a huge amount of time into the middle and old ages. But in this hypothetical, medical advancement means people are kept in peak physical fitness and youthfulness, meaning the true irredeemable psychos are just as likely to reoffend no matter how long they stay confined

[Goldwater]

Maybe then people will start supporting the death penalty again.

[RFayette]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

The interesting thing about this hypothetical is that weakens the utilitarian argument that often underpins this logic. Statistically most violent crime is done by young people, and beyond that it drops right down; so it stands to reason that there is less value in holding people in jail for a huge amount of time into the middle and old ages. But in this hypothetical, medical advancement means people are kept in peak physical fitness and youthfulness, meaning the true irredeemable psychos are just as likely to reoffend no matter how long they stay confined

Part of it may be that more life experience also decreases people's violent tendencies over time.  If a hypothetical immortality cure would still retain this feature of aging, then the utilitarian argument may still stand.  Of course, this is all hypothetical, and there's really no way of knowing what would happen in this scenario.  I'm definitely not a utilitarian - I think someone should be punished even if it could be guaranteed that they would never commit the action again - so I would still favor it in this scenario.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.

As I said, these people don't even belong in prison in the first place, but rather in a mental institution where their condition can be treated.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Is immortality something as a society that we want? If it were possible, should it be illegal? These must be answered before OP's question.

[Dr. MB]

Is immortality something as a society that we want? If it were possible, should it be illegal? These must be answered before OP's question.

It wouldn’t be a good idea — unless birth rates fall so low it would be sustainable. But basically, it shouldn’t be made illegal — that would basically mean government enforced killings. Like setting a maximum age.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

President Oprah will ban this, she said she wants old people to die already.

[dead0man]

Is immortality something as a society that we want?

does it matter?  Society shouldn't get to decide what people do with their bodies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no

You must be logged in to read this quote.

done

[RFayette]

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.

As I said, these people don't even belong in prison in the first place, but rather in a mental institution where their condition can be treated.

This is where we disagree. I think that because of human nature being depraved, someone without a mental illness can give themselves up so completely to evil that there is no turning back.  I think punishment is more appropriate for them than a fruitless attempt at treatment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.

As I said, these people don't even belong in prison in the first place, but rather in a mental institution where their condition can be treated.

This is where we disagree. I think that because of human nature being depraved, someone without a mental illness can give themselves up so completely to evil that there is no turning back.  I think punishment is more appropriate for them than a fruitless attempt at treatment.

I'm not the one to make that argument, but to use total depravity as a rationale to refuse extending mercy and forgiveness seems pretty antithetical to what I know of Christian teaching.

[RFayette]

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.

As I said, these people don't even belong in prison in the first place, but rather in a mental institution where their condition can be treated.

This is where we disagree. I think that because of human nature being depraved, someone without a mental illness can give themselves up so completely to evil that there is no turning back.  I think punishment is more appropriate for them than a fruitless attempt at treatment.

I'm not the one to make that argument, but to use total depravity as a rationale to refuse extending mercy and forgiveness seems pretty antithetical to what I know of Christian teaching.

I think the Christian teaching on forgiveness is far more about interactions between individuals than what we as a society should do to lawbreakers.   After all, I think the death penalty for murder is clearly affirmed in Romans and Genesis 9, for instance.  Certainly forgiveness can play a role in the justice system when someone can show that they are rehabilitated, but punishment does as well, and life imprisonment seems to be a fitting penalty for a career criminal who has proven after numerous second chances that he remains a danger to society.

My point was saying that simply wanting to continually do evil doesn't absolve someone of responsibility for their actions.  Mental illness which prevents people from making choices is one thing, but my point was that someone who continually chooses to do evil is simply reflecting the human condition.  It seems wrong to imply a habitual criminal belongs in a mental institution simply because they are a habitual criminal and want to keep choosing to break the law.       

[IceSpear]

This would just make me more supportive of the death penalty.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

This would just make me more supportive of the death penalty.

I strongly disagree actually. if people live longer, that's just more time for them to rot and suffer in prison, which is preferable to the death penalty for the worst of the worst offenders. I know that I'd personally rather be put to death than have to spend 50-60 years wasting away in a prison cell.