No, because parole boards are neither judges, nor juries, nor generally known for their competence.

Well we're going to dsagree strongly that the judgement say decades earler on a young man is better than we can do decades later. So much better that it's worth removing any hope.

At least you can make that argument I suppose but it's a very different one to the one you made.

I would no doubt agree on improving parole boards. Them being rubbish is no excuse.

He was obsessed with The Exoricist III

Apparently Ted Bundy was a fan of Citizen Kane

I certainly wouldn't apply LWOP as liberally as currently applied in the US, but I think it still needs to exist. I'd set the standard as it is currently in the UK for whole life tariffs. IIRC there are currently fewer than 100 prisoners on whole life tariffs in the UK, and you have to do something pretty ****ing special to qualify.

I don't think it's right to compare jodi arias to jeffrey dahmer. That guy was a total weirdo.

I often think about this poem. Even a small amount of freedom is worth fighting for even if just a moment. It's from hocus pocus, the whitman award winning poetry book by hospitalreformist lauren gilbert



Maybe Alyssa just sees twice as many stars.

I honestly haven't been following this thread super closely, but I'll chime in anyway.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty. I do believe that we should emphasize rehabilitation far more than we do now.

But, given that...

There are people in this world that are just bad and will harm others if they are not behind bars. They cannot ever be rehabilitated. That's just the way it is.

There are definitely people that have done things that warrant time behind bars, and would be good citizens when released.

And a lot in between.

We as a society will never get it 100% correct. We'll keep some in that maybe shouldn't be and we'll let some out that maybe shouldn't be. But, I am far more inclined to err on the side of the first scenario. If someone does something wrong and we somehow miscalculate when and how they get released, it is on them. Nobody else did something to them. However, if you miscalculate and let someone out who in turns does something bad to someone, then a completely innocent person (and anyone near and dear to them) pays the price.

The fact that most parole boards suck at their job just makes me antsy about long sentences, not that we should eliminate the opportunity for parole. Why not just cap most sentences around 20-30 years and end lwop and lwp?

I'm uncomfortable with this thread turning into, at times, basically love letters to serial killers as I don't think it appropriate to this forum. Please stay on the topic of the death penalty.

While my comment about parole boards was perhaps a little on the cavalier side (as most of my responses to chez deservedly tend to be), I think I pretty much answered your last question in the string of posts that comprise this conversation.

But in case my view wasn't clear, it's basically this:

We agree on more than we disagree actually. I understand ganstamans discomfort, so you and I should stick to a more direct conversation about the death penalty now, which of course I'm a 100% against.

It's ignorant but mostly idiotic to take a certain element of the PIC that needs fixing, like sentencing for drug offenses and sloping all the way to abolishment for murderers - not that anyone has done so in this thread (maybe) but it has been said in the past.

A small percentage of people, but a larger % of those serving life, lack the capacity to change and will continue their ways until they are dead or incarcerated.

the death penalty shouldnt exist.. but while it does, in the name of eye for an eye, the prosecutor that seeks and "wins" the death penalty case should be executed if the defendant is later exonerated. eye for an eye.

if you're willing to judge someone and sentence them to death, then you should be willing to have yourself judged on that same belief..

eta- this is tongue in cheek mostly.. but i know all too well how prosecutors become jaded/overworked to the point where you step back and you realize you're just throwing around numbers that mean years of people's lives based on the interpersonal relationship you have with individual attorneys

I don't want to argue or belabor the point, I just want to note that morally and legally there is nothing wrong with wanting to send letters to someone convicted of a major crime. It is very common and a good thing for everyone. Just because someone is a criminal does not mean they are no longer humans or the tapestry of our own humanity excludes them.

Gangstaman's discomfort was about you and Lirva picking which serial killers you want as pen pals, not about you and me discussing LWOP.

As for the death penalty, I'm neither 100% for nor 100% against, I'm pretty ambivalent on it. I can see the merits and I can see the drawbacks. I'm certainly not against it in principle.

Well it was good for Ted Bundy but not so good for all the women who wrote him or got brainwashed into thinking that he was not as bad as perceived.

But they're both art lovers!

Yes, not comparable.

But Jodi Arias is a total psycho too.

She converted to the mormons before the murder.
A mormon like Ruby Franke.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2408718.html

7 years is not enough for both of them mormons.
Not against Mormons, I think they are crazy though.
Just like scientologists. I had some mormons (morons without one letter ) as my customers, they are nice people but crazy.

You cannot rehabilitate a person in 7 years, and especially not for a murder.





edit:



Mitt Romney is mormon too, idk how crazy he is.

He seemed decent, I wanted him to become president.

But mormons have some crazy beliefs. That david smith is a prophet i.e. David smith was an idiot. And they can all become god like. That is a bs belief. And you have to give 10% of your income to them. And you have to ho on mission for 2 years if you are a boy.

A life is precious and to secure that your life is and stays safe you have to have punishment that is long enough and adequate enough that people dont do it. And to ensure that they have 18 years+ for that offence, everywhere.

How do you come up with 7 years, idk. Its not possible and wouldnt serve the purpose.

Imprisoning murderers isn't a wrong. Bustamante's a sociopath who bragged in her diary how murdering a child felt good. Yes she was a minor when she committed her crime but her crime was particularly repellent. It was a thrill kill and Bustamante lured her victim away and had already dug a grave. Thrill killers are dangerous even those who are under 18 at the time. I don't have a problem with her sentence and her serving a mere seven years would have been wrong.
It always bemuses me how advocates for lesser sentencing for such crimes always seem to place the offender first and victims second. Victims have a right to justice and their rights and the rights of their families who are further victims should take priority over what the offender would like.

...no?

Hybristophilia isn't new and is probably on the rise with the increase of abuse.

Holtzclaw is in jail for 263 something years. With experts saying innocently. All they have is some Facebook messages between him and a girl who called the police and some touch DNA.
Bernie Maddoff is in jail for 100 something years.

Everything has to be in perspective.
Murdererers have to receive at least 3 times the punishment of capital crime and etc.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!

Corpus look what I came across.

Funny that these 2 former cops come up with the exact same opinion as me here. Daniel Holzclaw got thrown under the bus.

You might want to rethink your conclusion about this case. It's wrong:

Can you explain this? I don't think you are using the correct definition of "capital crime".