222
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

I generally agree, but there are exceptions to every rule. I knew a guy who killed 6 people when he was 16, including his pregnant ex girlfriend. Dude absolutely should never be allowed out.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Sure, but that sounds like the exact sort of case a parole board would deny. The author here isn't saying we should abolish life in prison sentences for juveniles, just that they should all be able to at least apply for parole and try to convince the board that they're no longer a danger to others.

Only takes one board that has a few idiots on it, major prison overcrowding, or him learning to play the jesus card, and he could be out on the street.

[-] cricket97@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I don't think 17 year olds who commit heinous crimes should be excused because they're a year younger. For example, I think those kids who stole a car and purposefully ran over a biker while recording, resulting in his death, should be in jail for life. They lost their chance to participate in society.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Depends on the crime and the context. Sometimes a person’s status as a teenager has no real relevance to the crime, which is why we sometimes try minors as adults. In most of these cases, it’s quite clear the kid knew what they were doing was wrong and what the consequences would be for others.

Also, I don’t think there’s much of a difference between a 17-year-old being sentenced to live in prison vs. a 21-year-old.

I also firmly believe that some crimes are so heinous that the criminal does not deserve a second chance. The only reason I don’t support capital punishment is because human legal systems so often get their judgments wrong, and execution is a punishment you can’t take back. But that doesn’t change my opinion that some people do deserve to die for what they did. Ergo, life without parole seems a good alternative.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm always wary of a NIMBY effect in discussions like this, because it's always easy to say we should give someone a chance if you're not going to be living next to them or having loved ones near them. How many of you would be alright with yourself or a loved one living closely near someone like this, as a neighbor or coworker perhaps?

Someone will have to live near them and work near them, after all. If you aren't willing to be that someone, you have no right to put other people in that position. It's why I don't support parole for violent offenses. I would never feel comfortable or safe if I or a loved one were around them. I'm not going to ask someone else to do it instead so I can still feel good about showing mercy.

Is that harsh and selfish of me? Absolutely. But I see nothing wrong with putting society's safety ahead of the freedom of someone who has committed a truly heinous act. Mercy cannot come at the cost of the innocent. If there is any doubt that a person will pose a safety risk, they should not have parole.

[-] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I work with some of these kids and, frankly, sometimes life in prison is better than letting them try and fail over and over again.

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Well ok but also consider the victims though, shouldn't they get justice?

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago

How is ending someone else's life justice? It's revenge.

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

They would be wrong. It doesn't do anything to change what was done. The only thing it does it makes things worse for everyone. Everyone is forced to pay for their incarceration and it removes someone from society who could contribute to it instead. It's a burden to society, not a boon.

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Easy to say if someone close to you has never been harmed, but I doubt so many victims would agree that it's wrong. People who are victims also have a right for justice to be done on their behalf. It's not something you can just wave away.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What's a solution that doesn't do damage to others, let alone doing damage to someone who may still be redeemable? The event can't be undone. There's no way to change that. The outcome that does the most good should be the one used, not the one that makes you feel good because you got them back, which doesn't help anyone. That momentary joy will be gone in time, but the suffering of either party will never be changed.

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

some people just shouldn't be let back into society. But life in prison is pretty pointless to. We need to bring back penal colonies, just let the inmates run them. And I know, lots of issues with that plan, but maybe they can be figured out.

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
222 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2608 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS