Prototype Viktor
Member
Let him out if he can live to 117
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
D.C. sniper asks for new sentencing in light of Supreme Court rulings on juveniles
- Thread starter KSweeley
- Start date
Please go on...
Stormhammer
Member
the circumstances in which they died is -probably- the reason they would continue to hold onto grief i'd think
John Kowalski
Banned
I think i can recall more than one instance of people being able to ask for a reevaluation of their sentencing because of recent changes to law. I don't know how common a practice that is, but frankly, it should be something that's allowed. Reworking laws acknowledges that previous iterations of legal concepts were inept, and errors from ineptness should be corrected.
I am personally against life imprisonments and death sentences, so i have no real problem with his eventual release.
And what I'm saying is that your feelings on the matter, and it is one matter, derive from a wider cultural understanding of these things. Everyone can agree that there would be a difference in severity between these two cases, the reasons and extent for and of this difference is where our understandings come into play.
I don't think it's an accident you used happily. I think that word is the key to the problematic American understanding of justice.
Why is the death penalty better here than anything else? I can get being neutral to it, though I never could be, but better?
The chances of him ever getting it are pretty slim, and if it does happen it will be because he has been accredited as no longer a thread and that can now me a productive member of society.
If after a sizable amount of time a panel of credited specialists analyze him and conclude that he is no longer a threat and can be a productive member of society, why wouldn't he be released? At that point the prison has no further use.
The post and this entire thread will suffice.
If you can't understand what I mean from this maybe you're one of people my post is directed at.
It makes sense they'd feel that way. But that doesn't mean he should be denied a second chance because they feel vindictive.
Yes they do. The human mind is capable of dealing with grief over time. Just because the human mind isn't made of iron doesn't mean it's made of glass.
What is the point of the justice system if not rehabilitation or removing a threat to the public?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Theres a massive gulf between an old woman living a full life and dying at the end of it and someone being murdered in cold blood.
So unless your great grandmother had found a genies lamp decades ago and wished for eternal life, her death was probably expected. You cant even begin to comprehend how these victims families feel.
I am glad you have never had to deal with something like this as you clearly have no understanding of this topic. You honestly compared your great grandma passing to being brutally murdered in a state of fear.
Ok and our understandings are different.
It being problematic in a case like this is an opinion.
Provides closure, stops the person from ever possibly being a threat to anyone again (people in jail are still threats to workers and other inmates).
Experts can be wrong especially on something like this, it ain't a hard science. Depending on the expert you can get widely different opinions and on a case with this much risk his freedom is not worth the risk to other people.
Punishment is also a reason for prisons, and in my opinion his punishment has not been enough.
Snkfanatic
Banned
Please, enlighten us oh great Jindrax.
I think coming into a thread and just calling people idiots (in a nicer way), is pretty funny. But as long as you can feel superior to everyone else.
Good thing he needs to be there since he murdered 17 people. 17.
Well if you look at actual facts instead of revenge fantasies, Norway has a rehabilitation system, and it is hundreds of times more effective than the horrendous revenge punishment based version in the US. Ever wonder why that is? Ever wonder why the only thing the US system manages to do is not stopping anyone from committing crimes, manages to make people more likely to go even further down a criminal path after being in prison?
Every fact, every logic has told us that the rehabilliation system is the only one that works. To ignore this is to spit in the face of rational thought and facts and let yourself be controlled by nothing more than emotion.
freethoughtbubble
Member
.
He has a constitutional right to a rehearing, but unless he was literally brainwashed, I hope he rots in jail until dead. Apparently saying that about a serial murderer galls some people but I could care less about what these wellsprings of human empathy think.
Again there is a huge difference in how prisons should operate when dealing with crimes like this compared to white collar, non-violent and even some less serious violent crimes.
This thread has two opposing opinions, so you saying this doesn't actually mean anything, you could be referencing either.
You clearly not getting my point.
Yes their grief is probably much greater than what I felt, but people eventually stop feeling it.
Families' grief should not impact someone's punishment. If all the people he killed had no family, would you feel that his sentencing was unfair?
Sucessful prison systems deal violent crimes this way, unsucessful ones don't. Again, why do you think that is?
Moral Panic
Member
I think he should get a hearing. Doesn't mean he should be released, but I think it makes sense that he is sentenced based on the facts, he was a juvenile at the time.
That's not your call. If we have reason to believe he can function in society and is genuinely remorseful, why keep him in prison?
Rehabilitation and incapacitation are only two of the components of imprisonment in the justice system. There are also retribution and deterrence - the two that are typically wilfully ignored by some people.
I'm aware, in fact my point was that yours, and the American understanding more generally, are problems.
You can call what anyone thinks about society and what should be done in it an opinion. That doesn't have very much analytical value though.
But to do so someone must be killed, something we clearly agree is a bad thing. That's a heavy cost isn't it? I mean that's the reason your suggesting someone be killed in this case.
What's interesting then, and the root of the issue, is why you think killing someone leads to the state needing to kill them.
This is of course ignoring the extremely real, and clearly racial and classist in implantation, chance that the state will get this wrong.
Are they willfully ignored? I don't think anyone ignores or has an issue with deterrence. Though vindictive people seem to vastly overestimate its effect as a justification for what they are really after.
Now the latter people aren't willfully ignoring, the other position is that retribution should not be part of the justice system. It's a relic of worse times.
Why not? That's what I would like explained.
If you don't have a good reason, please just admit you're vindictive and let's put this to bed.
Exactly clear cut as can be. I like it!
Because he killed 17 people.
I'd consider someone like this or even most murders to ever be free a failure of the prison system.
Yeah the U.S prison fails horribly at dealing with low level crime, non-violent crime and in many cases less serious violent crime. Those people can be rehabilitated and deserve a chance at rehabilitation. People like this can't/don't.
Again, actual facts disagree with you.
I gave you a reason. You deflected and compared it to your great grandma.
Kidnapping people and holding them against their will is generally considered a bad thing, yet we do it when we throw people in prison.
Murder is wrong, killing people isn't always, self defense is alright for example. Never said that the state needs to kill someone like his partner, just that i'm fine with it.
Yeah that is a big problem, that's why i'm really only for the death penalty in extreme cases with undeniable evidence which admittedly is very open to interpretation.
You're not wrong. Which is why he is imprisoned.
He took seventeen people's lives. They would of loved to live and be a part of society. At what point is his time served equal to what could of been all the lives he took? I mean to me that matters.
I guess in my eyes it's like that act should carry a punishment so the prison would be of further use.
Well yes? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What I'm saying is interesting is your justification for why we do this. Otherwise I would have said what is interesting is that you think we should do this, not why you think this way.
Sure, but this acknowledges we need active justification, and the self-defense example in particular demonstrates that we need very strong active justification.
You said that the American justice system was better than others because of the death penalty earlier right? That seems stronger than you being fine with it.
But isn't that how all criminal trials are supposed to work?
The point is, if he's rehabilitated he would no longer be a threat.
How do families grieving have anything to do with why he's in prison? He's not in prison for that.
That's why he's in prison at all. That doesn't explain why he needs to stay there if he's been rehabilitated.
Keeping him in there forever or killing him isn't going to bring anyone back. Again, if someone is analyzed by specialists and found to no longer be a threat, and that it can be reintegrated into society, what is the point of prison? Wasting tax payer money on what amounts of useless, empty revenge?
Ron Mexico
Member
Simple question (and completely unrelated to the whole premise of the attorney asking for a new sentencing hearing but I digress)-- how do you prove this even beyond a reasonable doubt?
If we're willing to convict based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and if that's an acceptable standard, then how do we prove rehabilitation beyond a reasonable doubt?
If the answer is the opinion of a trained professional, why have jury trials?
Just food for thought.
Are you referring to trials in general or in this specific case?
Ron Mexico
Member
Both? More a hypothetical question than anything.
Full disclosure: back in '98, I was offered a full ride into a (relatively) prestigious law program. I wanted to try capital punishment cases as there was nothing that held more weight than the value of a human life. I had a professor in school that changed my opinion on all these things and now I'm in a completely different field. But to say the instincts and the questions and the ideas aren't there would be folly.
Stormhammer
Member
see in this thread people talking about him bein brainwashed. ain't nobody sympathizing with brainwashed isis radicals blowin people up, thinking they should be rehabilitated, why should i want a murderer of 17 to see the light of day. i mean hell, they had plans to set explosives at funerals and kill more people if they had been able to continue, so fuck 'em, let 'em rot.
Expert testimony. But you're right, this isn't germane. The issue here is that people are axiomatically against the idea that a murder should leave jail, because they see the point of jail as punishing social transgressors.
We require the same sorts of evidence in both cases, which is to say expert testimony.
We have jury trials through historical accident. I am generally not a fan of them anymore, though they served their purpose in the early modern period.
CountAntonius
Member
Question for you lot. Should a terrorist say an Isis Operative who bombed a church and killed 50 people also be released upon rehabilitation assuming he is no longer a threat?
For the US. It was based on what our founder's thought was a good idea at the time.
Unfortunately, it's very flawed.
Public defenders are underfunded, we rely on eyewitness testimony, juries are often biased, etc.
Yes.
Similar threads
- Locked