Extended Life Sentences

ren wrote:

Khaos wrote: It seems, as always, there is not shortage of people that are ready to point out problems, and yet, I see no one so motivated as to put themselves in positions to where they could fix the problems.

I'd like to tell people how to be a profitable criminal and finance more schools, hospitals, and food for the poor through money laundering than any cop or judge ever will, but it's against totjo policy. :whistle:

[strike]Wait, I thought you had my email address?[/strike]

Er, yea... what a shame.... :lol:....

As to your statement Khaos, yea, what a shame more people arent doing that...

Two TOTJO members (I being one) are members of the elected government...

We have to start somewhere, and I hope to see more of us understand, that just like shaping anything, it takes work from the inside...

TOTJO will not change, unless that change comes from within...

Neither will the state of the world...

I can scream at a piece of clay to become an ashtray but unless I roll up my sleeves, it is probably not going to listen...

So, to implement the change I wnat to see, to become the change I want to see, I ran for office, got elected, and am doing what I can....

As to the OP, the reason, as I understand it, for these 'more than life' sentences, is becasue with time off for good behavior, these guys are serving less time than they are sentenced to...

So, give them 4 lifetimes, even at an even ratio of 2 days credit for every day served, they will most likely not get out of there alive...

I dont necessarily agree with all of the things I see and read, but, as a government employee in one municipality, and the elected official in another, there are things that the government is aware of that the average taxpayer is not...

I used to love hearing Monday morning quarterbacks complain, now, I really laugh about it, because, as you said Khaos, most wont bother to do anymore than bitch about it...

I don't think we should be messing with anyone's brain in prison. That would fall under cruel and unusual. As for keeping someone alive so they complete their sentence, that would just be a waste of money. They've already lost all hope of ever being out of prison. Why waste money extending that misery?

What is the intent? Is the intent to keep someone in prison for life to torture them? Make them suffer? Rehabilitate them? Or is it a deterrent to others to not act in a certain behavior? What is the cost compared to the benefit?

The prison system is a cancer on society and it does nothing but drain resources from the rest of society. Why do we drag out sentences at society’s expense?

Rehabilitation is the noble goal. But, in truth, the systems in place make it difficult to do so. It is not a deterrent, few are scared of the prison system, and in some circles it is almost a badge of accomplishment, or rite of passage. We adapt and change with our environment, and we place like minded criminals together without enough interaction to change the mindset. If anything it breeds the mindset, hones the skill of criminality.

If we can alter the perception of time, then can we affect change in the person to rehabilitate them?

I am not a fan of imprisoning someone for life just so they can sit there for years draining society. If they can be used to benefit society in some way, be productive then fine, but to just sit in a cell for 40-60 years. What is the point?
Mental illness or derangement is a different matter and needs to be treated as such. Treatment and rehabilitation should be the plan/goal. But what do you do with those who cannot be cured/rehabilitated?

I think Akkarin is on to something, we need to address the source rather than the symptom.

You cannot make someone change, but if they are not willing to be rehabilitated, then what choice do we have besides lock them away or remove them from life?

Is removing a non-contributing person from society a bad thing? If they are nothing but a drain on society’s resources, contribute nothing but the “Bad example” of what NOT to be, is it not worth discussing whether removing them be a viable option?

If that was one of the two options, do you think that someone may try harder to change their behavior?

How about a third option; if they cannot be rehabilitated, and we do not want to impose death, they perform tasks for the benefit of society.

Indentured servants, slavery, chain gangs, all come to mind. Is that the best thing to do? At least with this option they are contributing to the greater good/whole of society instead of a drain.

I guess where I am headed with this is, the system in place is a drain on society without a benefit to the inmate or the populous as a whole.

Okay, I am doing exactly what has been stated already, I am pointing out the problems without offering up solutions. So here are some of the things I have done that have made positive change.

What I have been doing to make change is to help prevent anyone from heading down this path to begin with. I mentor those around me and constantly strive to be a good role model and example to them so they can strive to do so as well.

I opened a community center for children, instilling morals in the community center that have become infectious with the youth and they in turn pass it forward. I have since transferred from that location but return on occasion to find it has been thriving and still doing good since I opened it in 2001.

I help the elders in my community and go to senior centers, and encourage the youth to take the time to do so as well. Our elders offer so much and we neglect the insight that is there.

Like Jestor stated, we have to start somewhere. Change takes time and energy. Once I retired from the military, I plan to continue my service in whatever capacity I am able, maybe choosing to change the government by becoming the voice of reason in government. We will see where my Path leads.

Karn wrote: Like Jestor stated, we have to start somewhere. Change takes time and energy. Once I retired from the military, I plan to continue my service in whatever capacity I am able, maybe choosing to change the government by becoming the voice of reason in government. We will see where my Path leads.

It will probably need reason after I get done passing laws of 'ah-ooga' horns on all automobiles, and required face paint on holidays....

V-Tog wrote: I've seen a few articles recently about the ethics of extended life sentences. Here are a few of them:

Aeon Magazine
Daily Mail
Practical Ethics

Various issues are discussed (for example - would it be ethical to condemn someone to 1000 years of imprisonment?) but the one that interests me most is - would it be ethical to artificially extend someone's life for the purpose of punishment? The Aeon article asks the question like this:

"What about life expansion that meddles with a person’s perception of time? Take someone convicted of a heinous crime, like the torture and murder of a child. Would it be unethical to tinker with the brain so that this person experiences a 1,000-year jail sentence in his or her mind?"

Given that one day in the future I'm sure this kind of thing will be possible, what do you think?

I feel like that would fall under cruel and unusual punishment, atleast in my opinion...maybe even torture.
Certainly sounds like hell.

This topic has certainly become relevant once again in light of the recent botched execution in Oklahoma . It raises a number of questions about the death penalty and length of sentencing in general.

If we decide to no longer execute prisoners, are we then obligated to attempt rehabilitation? Who decides which prisoners can be rehabilitated and which cannot? Cops and judges have become murderers as well, yet we trust them to make these judgments.

What do we owe to the victims or victim's family in terms of "justice"? If a serial killer murders multiple people, would each murder warrant the same sentence? If you give a life sentence for one, shouldn't that require a life sentence for each? Should victims or families have a say in the punishment? Should they be allowed to flip the switch?

Is it possible for a life sentence to be more "cruel and unusual" than execution? Can keeping someone alive actually serve "justice" better than killing them? Timothy McVeigh was convicted of bombing a federal building in Oklahoma and actually petitioned for his execution to be televised. It was not, but witnesses of his execution claimed that he was defiant until the end. Some found little to know relief in seeing him die in a manor that they felt was smug and indignant. He chose not to offer a final statement, but left the poem 'Invictus' instead. It was as if in dying, he still got the last word.

V-Tog wrote: I've seen a few articles recently about the ethics of extended life sentences. Here are a few of them:

Aeon Magazine
Daily Mail
Practical Ethics

Various issues are discussed (for example - would it be ethical to condemn someone to 1000 years of imprisonment?) but the one that interests me most is - would it be ethical to artificially extend someone's life for the purpose of punishment? The Aeon article asks the question like this:

"What about life expansion that meddles with a person’s perception of time? Take someone convicted of a heinous crime, like the torture and murder of a child. Would it be unethical to tinker with the brain so that this person experiences a 1,000-year jail sentence in his or her mind?"

Given that one day in the future I'm sure this kind of thing will be possible, what do you think?

My favorite solution is the one given in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode " Hard Time ."