Beerball Posted May 18, 2010 Posted May 18, 2010 What say you? A state need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes the sentence of life, it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term. It must provide? Why? Are only crimes which include death considered heinous enough? Aren't there other crimes where life without possibility of parole is the correct sentence? It is a sentance that is rare, but to remove it entirely seems wrong to me. Why make this kind of absolute decision?
dib Posted May 18, 2010 Posted May 18, 2010 What say you? It must provide? Why? Are only crimes which include death considered heinous enough? Aren't there other crimes where life without possibility of parole is the correct sentence? It is a sentance that is rare, but to remove it entirely seems wrong to me. Why make this kind of absolute decision? Chemical castration is an option.
Cugalabanza Posted May 18, 2010 Posted May 18, 2010 What say you? Sounds reasonable to me. It’s only for juveniles and in cases where no one was killed. It does not guarantee release, but does give them a chance at parole in the future. I think it’s a reasonable interpretation of the 8th Amendment (no cruel and unusual punishment). To look at a young person and make the judgment to categorically deny them even the chance of rehabilitation as an adult seems unfair. I think this ruling makes good sense. Of course, we have to have some faith that those parole boards will make the right decisions down the line.
BB27 Posted May 18, 2010 Posted May 18, 2010 Chemical castration is an option. How about actual castration? Seems more appropriate in my mind.
Recommended Posts