A 15 year old girl killed a nine year old girl to see what it was like.

[dtugg]

Yes, but you can't prove they are still a danger,

Can I prove that any given murderer will kill again if released. No, of course not. But I prefer to err on the side of caution. A recidivism rate of 1-4% like you cited is plenty enough justification. How many lives would have been saved if those people had been locked up for life like they should have been?

nor can you prove that you are not a danger.

There is no reason I should have to.

 

[Beerina]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/alyssa-bustamante-slaying_n_364544.html

I was on a grand jury in 1989 concerning a very similar case. A 15 year old boy named Randy Dobbs skipped school one day and called in a pizza delivery. The twenty year old married mother of an infant baby came to the door and was shot to death through the window.

Ok we thought that the best interests of society would be served if this boy went on trial as an adult. Georgia doesn't allow the death penalty for a person under 17. He was tried and convicted and sentenced to life with a chance of parole but I've heard that his behaviour in prison is such that the possibility of parole has been removed.

Ok along comes this girl. She planned the murder. She had even dug the childs grave before the murder. The nine year old victim had done nothing to the 15 year old. The older girl killed her to see what it felt like.

What do you guys think should be done with people like this? The murderer is just a kid herself. Could she be rehabilitated?

I encourage her to see what the inside of a prison for the next 70 years feels like. You want the full experience? In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[dtugg]

You are mixing up your tenses here.

No I am not.

Also, what qualifies you to judge who is or isn't a danger to society?

I have common sense.

We have a potential argument that lenient jail sentences and rehabilitation reduce the overall danger to society by lessening crime rates whereas harsh sentences do nothing to reduce crime rates. How do you balance that with your view that people deserve to be in jail?

That might be true overall, but as I keep saying, murderers who are in prison cannot hurt anybody on the outside. So keep them in prison. For life.

Do you think the punishment aspect should outweight the prevention aspect?

No. But I think that imprisoning murderers for life serves both purposes.

 

[Cicero]

Well, Norway has gone the exactly opposite route when it comes to justice, we have very low sentences (Maximum prison sentence is 21 years.) and focus greatly on rehabilitation over anything else.

Norway has one of the world's lowest crime and murder rates.

Norway

Population: 4,769,274
Total prison population: 2666 prisoners

USA

Population 350,000,000
Total prison population: 7,300,000


"Where convicts lead the good life"

"In Norway, even murders and rapists have a shot at landing in "open prison"


"The biggest mistake that our societies have made is to believe that you must punish hard to change criminals," explained Oeyvind Alnaes, Bastoey's then-prison governor. "This is wrong. The big closed prisons are criminal schools. If you treat people badly, they will behave badly. Anyone can be a citizen if we treat them well, respect them, and give them challenges and demands."

[/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison


The Norwegians didn't "treat (citizens) well, respect them, and give them challenges and demands" until after they committed murders and/or rapes?

 

[Dragoonster]

We have a potential argument that lenient jail sentences and rehabilitation reduce the overall danger to society by lessening crime rates whereas harsh sentences do nothing to reduce crime rates. How do you balance that with your view that people deserve to be in jail?

That assumes that crime wouldn't be worse in the US if our sentences/rehab was the same as Norway. There are many other factors, population size, police force, gun laws, culture that could mean that the US system is right for the US and the Norway system is right for Norway.

Do you think the punishment aspect should outweigh the prevention aspect?

Don't want to steal his answer, but for me it's a huge yes. Deterrance should always play second fiddle to punishment. The actual victim of a crime should be who courts (eta: make that crime laws and the prosecution) advocate for, far ahead of the rest of society.

 

[Ryokan]

The Norwegians didn't "treat (citizens) well, respect them, and give them challenges and demands" until after they committed murders and/or rapes?

Cicero reads an article about how Norway actually rehabilitates criminals, including murderers, and all he can think of is how he can twist the words into something bad...

If you want the people in prison, who eventually will be free citizens, to reintegrate into society, you have to show them respect, yes. Do you disagree?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Can I prove that any given murderer will kill again if released. No, of course not. But I prefer to err on the side of caution. A recidivism rate of 1-4% like you cited is plenty enough justification. How many lives would have been saved if those people had been locked up for life like they should have been?

If the argument that rehabilitation results in lower crime rates is correct then the answer is none. In fact, your approach could cost people their lives. How many lives is 'locking up people where they belong' worth?

 

[Ryokan]

Don't want to steal his answer, but for me it's a huge yes. Deterrance should always play second fiddle to punishment. The actual victim of a crime should be who courts (eta: make that crime laws and the prosecution) advocate for, far ahead of the rest of society.

But the problem is that a vast majority of those in prison will eventually be set free to walk the streets. If they get released after decades of 'punishment', chances are they won't be model citizens when they get out.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That assumes that crime wouldn't be worse in the US if our sentences/rehab was the same as Norway. There are many other factors, population size, police force, gun laws, culture that could mean that the US system is right for the US and the Norway system is right for Norway.

Yes of course. Shouldn't we therefore take a good look at this alternative system rather than dismiss it out of hand because of some belief that certain people deserve to be in jail regardless of the effect on society as a whole as the result?

Don't want to steal his answer, but for me it's a huge yes. Deterrance should always play second fiddle to punishment. The actual victim of a crime should be who courts (eta: make that crime laws and the prosecution) advocate for, far ahead of the rest of society.

So what exactly is the point of punishment? You are happy with a system where there are MORE victims under a greater level of threat of crime provided we treat convicted criminals in a harsh manner? Can you explain? I really can't follow this argument. In and of itself what value does punishment have?

 

[dtugg]

If the argument that rehabilitation results in lower crime rates is correct then the answer is none.

Huh?

In fact, your approach could cost people their lives. How many lives is 'locking up people where they belong' worth?

What part of the fact that people in prison cannot hurt anybody on the outside do you not understand?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That might be true overall, but as I keep saying, murderers who are in prison cannot hurt anybody on the outside. So keep them in prison. For life.

The prisoners might not hurt anyone but the system can. If the system overall results in more murders you can't discount that information.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Huh?

What part of the fact that people in prison cannot hurt anybody on the outside do you not understand?

And which part of the argument that locking people up results in more murders overall do you not understand?

 

[Cainkane1]

But the problem is that a vast majority of those in prison will eventually be set free to walk the streets. If they get released after decades of 'punishment', chances are they won't be model citizens when they get out.

So why let a cold blooded murderer out of prison at all? Premeditating a murder on a child as innocent as a nine year old girl because you want to know what it feels like to murder someone should keep ypu behind bars for the rest of your life.

Lets say she was rehabilitated. The little girl is still dead. The childs parents are still grieving so why allow her (the killer) any mercy beyond keeping her safe and warm and fed and doctored in prison?

 

[AWPrime]

But their crime rate is low. It must be working. If the argument is that sentences should be tougher to keep everyone else safe, I think Norway is proving that argument false.

It might be a correlation instead of a causation relationship. Simply it may be the case that people less likely to become a murderer in Norway then in the USA.

 

[icerat]

I would think that if this girl hasn't figured out what right or wrong is by the time she is 15, she isn't going to figure it out. I am not talking about how it is wrong to hit people, or to steal, this is murder! Is there a possibility that this girl ISN'T a psychopath? What is the rehabilitation rate for those? Lock up the parents is what I say.

I recall reading some years back research that indicated if you haven't learned basic ethical and moral standards by puberty, you pretty much never will.

In other words, if this is true, she can't be rehabilitated.

Still, it seems some how unjust given that the reason she's ended up at this irredeemable point so young is probably due to circumstances completely out of her control.

I've no idea what we can do about that. Sad.

 

[dtugg]

The prisoners might not hurt anyone but the system can. If the system overall results in more murders you can't discount that information.

I am not opposed to the idea of rehabilitating people convicted of lesser crimes. And it's certainly possible that this could lead to less murders and crime overall.

And which part of the argument that locking people up results in more murders overall do you not understand?

Perhaps locking people up in general. But locking murderers up for life doesn't, it's not logically possible.

 

[Ryokan]

What part of the fact that people in prison cannot hurt anybody on the outside do you not understand?

There are other effects of short prison terms to consider.

Now, don't misunderstand me and believe I'm painting Norway to be this fairy tale country where everyone is nice and good at heart. Scum can be found anywhere, also in Norway. But one thing that is very rare is murder to conceal other crimes, like killing witnesses, rape-victims, etc. The police have very good statistics on their website, so I can quote exactly how many if anyone is interested (Can be found here, for those that understand Scandinavian languages.). The prison sentences for whatever crime they've committed are so short anyway, why risk prolonging it that much by also committing murder? Now, if they faced decades of prison for their crimes, it makes much more sense to go to extreme lengths to avoid getting caught, including murder.

This also includes murder. If you've murdered someone, and you know that if you get caught, you will spend the rest of your life in the hellhole of American prison justice, how desperate does that make you? Does this make you more dangerous until you're caught? Does the Norwegian system make it easier for murderers to give up without a fight, knowing how our system works?

And how many people are in prison for life in American, anyway? Without ever getting out on parole? I doubt it's all murderers. Who would you have walking your streets, someone who spent 30-40 years in the American prison justice system, or someone who was shown respect and slowly rehabilitated back into society over a shorter period?

I understand that it's very counter-intuitive for some, and that it doesn't sound like justice. But in the choice over punishment vs rehabilitation, I think in the long run society is much better off with rehabilitation.

 

[Kariboo]

So why let a cold blooded murderer out of prison at all?

How about murder in the second degree
Vehicular manslaughter
Attempted murder
Manslaughter
Rape
Kidnapping
Child abuse
Arson
Burgulary
Assault

Lets say they ^^^ were rehabilitated. The victim/family are still grieving so why allow them any mercy beyond keeping them safe and warm and fed and doctored in prison?

 

[Ryokan]

So why let a cold blooded murderer out of prison at all? Premeditating a murder on a child as innocent as a nine year old girl because you want to know what it feels like to murder someone should keep ypu behind bars for the rest of your life.

Lets say she was rehabilitated. The little girl is still dead. The childs parents are still grieving so why allow her (the killer) any mercy beyond keeping her safe and warm and fed and doctored in prison?

If she's really beyond any hope, even the Norwegian system would lock her up forever. Those mechanism have only been used once in modern times, though, and that was so recently that we still have to give it some to before we know that he'll actually be behind bars for the rest of his life.

But it seems to me you don't even want to consider the possibility of rehabilitating this person, so I don't see much point in the discussion. You prefer punishment, I prefer rehabilitation.

 

[dtugg]

There are other effects of short prison terms to consider.

Now, don't misunderstand me and believe I'm painting Norway to be this fairy tale country where everyone is nice and good at heart. Scum can be found anywhere, also in Norway. But one thing that is very rare is murder to conceal other crimes, like killing witnesses, rape-victims, etc. The police have very good statistics on their website, so I can quote exactly how many if anyone is interested (Can be found here, for those that understand Scandinavian languages.). The prison sentences for whatever crime they've committed are so short anyway, why risk prolonging it that much by also committing murder? Now, if they faced decades of prison for their crimes, it makes much more sense to go to extreme lengths to avoid getting caught, including murder.

This also includes murder. If you've murdered someone, and you know that if you get caught, you will spend the rest of your life in the hellhole of American prison justice, how desperate does that make you? Does this make you more dangerous until you're caught? Does the Norwegian system make it easier for murderers to give up without a fight, knowing how our system works?

This makes some sense.

And how many people are in prison for life in American, anyway? Without ever getting out on parole? I doubt it's all murderers.

No, not all murderers get life, although I think they should (unless there is extreme mitigating circumstances).

Who would you have walking your streets, someone who spent 30-40 years in the American prison justice system, or someone who was shown respect and slowly rehabilitated back into society over a shorter period?

Well, neither.

I understand that it's very counter-intuitive for some, and that it doesn't sound like justice. But in the choice over punishment vs rehabilitation, I think in the long run society is much better off with rehabilitation.

There is no reason it can't be both - punishment (and protecting society from the individual) for crimes like murder and rehabilitation for less serious crimes.