A Guy Beat, Raped, Shot, and Buried Alive a 19 Year Old Girl. Guess Who's The Victim?

[Teallaura]

And so is putting an innocent man in prison for life. Nothing we do is full-proof, but that doesn't mean we don't try.

Granted - but you can make restitution in the latter case - you cannot in the former.

Pay attention - I didn't argue that the judicial system is perfect in any other case.

[seer]

I don't need to - God gave them the ability so it's pretty stupid to assume they never used it. You can argue that moronically if you like, but I won't.

I never argued the DP was immoral in the case of the GUILTY.

Lock them up and throw away the key - use the money you'd otherwise spend to kill them to increase the police protection, 911 call centers or anything else that might reasonably prevent such a tragedy. Wasting money and resources killing losers accomplishes nothing of any tangible benefit (deterrence being intangible at best - non-existent at worst).

Pay attention.

But there is no reason to spend more money on these two men. Their guilt is certain - so why not execute them now? The Petit family wants them executed - where is their justice?

[seer]

Granted - but you can make restitution in the latter case - you cannot in the former.

But that is very rare. Most innocent men sent up for life will die in prison. If I follow your logic we should not have life terms either.

[Zymologist]

Granted - but you can make restitution in the latter case - you cannot in the former.

Pay attention - I didn't argue that the judicial system is perfect in any other case.

How would you make restitution for an erroneous life imprisonment? Just curious.

[Carrikature]

Hey Carr, I don't think escaping is the only circumstance that puts others in peril. The prison population itself is in possible jeopardy too. The possibility of a serial killer murdering another inmate must be considered.

This is admittedly an area I've not put much thought into. Based on my little knowledge, I'd think that was the point of the varying levels of security in prisons. 'Reasonable' is a pretty nebulous term, but is there a point where reasonable prevention is considered sufficient? I'm not sure.

That said, the erring on the side of caution I mentioned is meant to handle such cases as serial killers. Short of solitary confinement (which may or may not be cruel and unusual thanks to mental effects), there's probably no such thing as 'safely imprisoned' for those types of criminals. At the risk of having you all denounce me morally, I'd suggest that some combination of murder-type (premeditated vs emotional) and quantity of deaths could get a felon into the "better safe than sorry" category. It's obviously a messy discussion.

[Teallaura]

But there is no reason to spend more money on these two men. Their guilt is certain - so why not execute them now? The Petit family wants them executed - where is their justice?

Because justice is NOT served by vigilantes - not true now or in Scripture. The matter must go to the judiciary - and all the attendant protections because anything less is vigilantism, not justice.

[Carrikature]

Yes, and like I said I got to know many Correction Officers and they told me that the lifers are the most dangerous inmates - to them.

I've heard that from several places. For what it's worth, this seems to be a result of "without the possibility of parole". I'm not convinced that's a reasonable sentence, either. It seems foolish to suggest someone could still be a danger thirty years later. If we're that concerned about their behavior, we've passed beyond rehabilitation (which is part of the point) and into pure containment. Why not simply put them into the "better safe than sorry" category?

[Teallaura]

But that is very rare. Most innocent men sent up for life will die in prison. If I follow your logic we should not have life terms either.

Commonality is NOT a concern - doesn't matter how rare it is, it's still unjust. And since restitution can be made in the case of life imprisonment, you are being absurd.

Pay attention to the actual argument - you're not just skipping steps; you're now misrepresenting the opposition.

[Teallaura]

How would you make restitution for an erroneous life imprisonment? Just curious.

Restoring freedom, making financial restitution. Not gonna make an injustice any less unjust but it does beat doing nothing at all - or worse, trying to apologize to a grave.

[Carrikature]

Lock them up and throw away the key - use the money you'd otherwise spend to kill them to increase the police protection, 911 call centers or anything else that might reasonably prevent such a tragedy. Wasting money and resources killing losers accomplishes nothing of any tangible benefit (deterrence being intangible at best - non-existent at worst).

It seems we mostly agree. I'd be interested in your take on protecting prisoners from each other.

[Teallaura]

This is admittedly an area I've not put much thought into. Based on my little knowledge, I'd think that was the point of the varying levels of security in prisons. 'Reasonable' is a pretty nebulous term, but is there a point where reasonable prevention is considered sufficient? I'm not sure.

That said, the erring on the side of caution I mentioned is meant to handle such cases as serial killers. Short of solitary confinement (which may or may not be cruel and unusual thanks to mental effects), there's probably no such thing as 'safely imprisoned' for those types of criminals. At the risk of having you all denounce me morally, I'd suggest that some combination of murder-type (premeditated vs emotional) and quantity of deaths could get a felon into the "better safe than sorry" category. It's obviously a messy discussion.

On a related note, it's becoming possible to mitigate the effects of solitary using technology. Not advocating at this point - just pointing out that this may change.

[Carrikature]

On a related note, it's becoming possible to mitigate the effects of solitary using technology. Not advocating at this point - just pointing out that this may change.

Good point. I can't wait to watch the serial killers Call of Duty tournament.



(Yes, it's still a good point.)

[Teallaura]

It seems we mostly agree. I'd be interested in your take on protecting prisoners from each other.

Yeah, you and Spart are scaring me - I'm not used to agreeing with both of you!


I think the prison system needs to be segregated on a number of criteria and danger to others is high on my list. Those with life sentences probably should have their own facility and very limited physical access to one another (maybe on an 'as needed' basis). An intranet system would let them interact without actually being able to stab each other. In the worst cases, a system very similar to a modern zoo where animals are seldom, if ever, handled. All of which presumes rigorous oversight - there's no such thing as a free lunch.

[Teallaura]

Good point. I can't wait to watch the serial killers Call of Duty tournament.



(Yes, it's still a good point.)

I'm debating whether limiting their access to My Little Pony games would be 'cruel and unusual'....

[seer]

Because justice is NOT served by vigilantes - not true now or in Scripture. The matter must go to the judiciary - and all the attendant protections because anything less is vigilantism, not justice.

Teallaura, perhaps I'm not getting through - they are guilty, caught read handed. They got a fair trial. What else is needed? What more protections do they deserve? And to suggest that the Petit family are vigilantes is just morally twisted and sick.