I know people serving life without parole. One of them especially I'm fond of. One of the funniest, nicest people I've met. Two people were killed. Did he do it? I couldn't tell you. I've read his entire case file multiple times and I can't say for certain if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was arrested at 19 and will never see the light of day unless the law changes. If he had a lot of money for a lawyer he could probably get his sentence converted to a fixed duration, since there is now case law saying those under 21 should not be given indefinite sentences due to the undeveloped nature of their brains.
I'm actually amazed at the statistic that only 3% return to prison. There are actually very little resources for those getting released, and if your entire family and friends are gone, you have no support network to fall back on. Perhaps getting out above retirement age gives you access to more charities and a small state pension that will allow you to find a place to live and buy food.
One of the saddest cases I know of is a man who did 50 straight years then needed money when he got out, so his daughter persuaded him to go shoplifting with her and he got arrested immediately and sent back for another three years.
If this person was freed from prison and then the relatives of the two dead people killed him in retaliation, how much prison time do you think it would be just for them to receive? Deterring this kind of informal retaliatory murder is one of the jobs of harsh sentences in the formal criminal justice system.
> As many of them acknowledge, they have been rightly punished for a long time. But, ask yourself as you watch the video, how long is long enough?
I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society.
I get that people want closure/revenge, and understand that. I'm sure I would feel the same in many cases. But ... it just doesn't help anything. And sure there's an argument for it being preventative (don't do the crime or you'll do the time), but lots of studies have shown that's has little validity.
> None of us want to be defined solely by the person we were in our youth, or by the worst thing we ever did. The men serving life without parole feel the same way.
Fair, but if it's likely that you're the type of person that _will_ do catastrophic harm to society again if you get out, then there's a fair argument that you should not be out.
> I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society.
Sure, but general deterrence benefits the society, too. Case in point: for many years, California effectively decriminalized petty theft, and it caused a lot of grief to normal people. That's an argument for harsher punishment: even if most shoplifters / porch pirates / smash-and-grab people are not hardened criminals, you want to send a message to anyone contemplating that lifestyle.
To give another example: almost no one gets behind the wheel with the intent to kill. But if you severely punish drunk / negligent driving, more people will pause before doing it.
>I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society.
How do you know whether a murderer won't be a repeat murderer?
There seems to be a great variance here. Maine, for example, has been making available computers and educational assets and as a result some prisoners have become quite technologically adept and left prison as skilled technologists.
"I make sure that my life is purposeful. Every time I invest myself into someone else, I free a part of myself. A part of me will leave here with you. I'm going to love people so passionately until a part of me will always live outside of the gates of Angola."
After graduation my high-school-best-friend and I took different paths. He got heavily into partying and drugs, and started doing crimes to pay for his addictions. First major conviction was for stolen credit cards. Second conviction was for check fraud. His third major conviction was for breaking into rich people's houses and stealing loose crap like golf clubs, power tools and bicycles. Missouri had just passed its version of the then-popular Three Strikes law, and this latest conviction was his third strike. He was fast-passed to a 20-year sentence, no opportunity for early release.
I'm not going to preach about my friend being a victim of a cruel system or whatever. He deserved to be punished, no doubt about it. He committed crimes; there were victims to those crimes. My feeling, however, is that the people of Missouri are the victims, the taxpayers. They had to pay to jail a dude for 20 years (they paid for his college education, too, through some sort of convict-college program). I'm confident there's a better way to punish/rehabilitate non-violent offenders that doesn't cost the tax payers 20 years of jailing.
Funny-not-funny tidbit: My friend was released in early-2021. He was released after serving 20 years, only to be "locked down" on the outside because of Covid.
Some people would say that murder is the worst crime, but I disagree. A murder done in anger, or to get revenge, or for money, or is otherwise a personal thing is one thing. But there are crimes against society - like the Boston bombers, and the school shooters, and the people who deliberately drive into crowds, or poison the water supply. Those disrupt society, and the cost of them goes far beyond the people killed.
Mass murder being worse than a single murder seems self-evident. I don't want people who have done either to be roaming free in society. Granted a killing may be a crime of rage or passion and not methodically planned, but generally that would be charged as manslaughter and so the difference in motivation and effect on society is already recognized.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
qingcharles|12 days ago
I'm actually amazed at the statistic that only 3% return to prison. There are actually very little resources for those getting released, and if your entire family and friends are gone, you have no support network to fall back on. Perhaps getting out above retirement age gives you access to more charities and a small state pension that will allow you to find a place to live and buy food.
One of the saddest cases I know of is a man who did 50 straight years then needed money when he got out, so his daughter persuaded him to go shoplifting with her and he got arrested immediately and sent back for another three years.
JuniperMesos|12 days ago
gruez|12 days ago
Surely there would be an indictment alleging what he did?
RHSeeger|12 days ago
I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society.
I get that people want closure/revenge, and understand that. I'm sure I would feel the same in many cases. But ... it just doesn't help anything. And sure there's an argument for it being preventative (don't do the crime or you'll do the time), but lots of studies have shown that's has little validity.
> None of us want to be defined solely by the person we were in our youth, or by the worst thing we ever did. The men serving life without parole feel the same way.
Fair, but if it's likely that you're the type of person that _will_ do catastrophic harm to society again if you get out, then there's a fair argument that you should not be out.
lich_king|12 days ago
Sure, but general deterrence benefits the society, too. Case in point: for many years, California effectively decriminalized petty theft, and it caused a lot of grief to normal people. That's an argument for harsher punishment: even if most shoplifters / porch pirates / smash-and-grab people are not hardened criminals, you want to send a message to anyone contemplating that lifestyle.
To give another example: almost no one gets behind the wheel with the intent to kill. But if you severely punish drunk / negligent driving, more people will pause before doing it.
gruez|12 days ago
How do you know whether a murderer won't be a repeat murderer?
BrandoElFollito|12 days ago
Better kill them, then. Their stay in prison will not help them, and there will be less costs and risks.
knowitnone3|12 days ago
[deleted]
m0llusk|12 days ago
knowitnone3|12 days ago
[deleted]
danbruc|12 days ago
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOmcP9sMwIE
unknown|12 days ago
[deleted]
dmitrygr|12 days ago
according to the date: "until death" is enough.
society is not well served by releasing them.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/returning-prison-0
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/sex_offense_recidivism_2...
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/
https://ciceroinstitute.org/research/the-case-for-incarcerat...
https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/recidivism-and-reentry
munificent|12 days ago
Wow.
AstroBen|12 days ago
How do you empathize, or trust that it's not just a ploy to try to get out?
kitesay|12 days ago
It's not like they'll have a retirement fund.
SoftTalker|12 days ago
jimt1234|12 days ago
I'm not going to preach about my friend being a victim of a cruel system or whatever. He deserved to be punished, no doubt about it. He committed crimes; there were victims to those crimes. My feeling, however, is that the people of Missouri are the victims, the taxpayers. They had to pay to jail a dude for 20 years (they paid for his college education, too, through some sort of convict-college program). I'm confident there's a better way to punish/rehabilitate non-violent offenders that doesn't cost the tax payers 20 years of jailing.
Funny-not-funny tidbit: My friend was released in early-2021. He was released after serving 20 years, only to be "locked down" on the outside because of Covid.
WalterBright|12 days ago
Those criminals need to be in jail for life.
SoftTalker|12 days ago
OutOfHere|12 days ago
1970-01-01|12 days ago
dmitrygr|12 days ago
This is what you stand for, if you want them out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Iryna_Zarutska
https://www.cleveland19.com/2025/12/17/murder-suspect-releas...
https://nypost.com/2026/02/11/us-news/dhs-slams-activist-jud...
amelius|12 days ago
ge96|12 days ago
DivingForGold|15 days ago
hrimfaxi|12 days ago