Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Should life mean life?
- Thread starter Randy
- Start date
A life sentence should mean exactly that only if all avenues prove this person deserves life. How many times have you read about people sitting on death row for crimes they didn't commit. Or people who were put to death for crimes they later proved through DNA that the person was innocent.
That's why they have MULTIPLE life sentences
If they have been convicted of the crimes and there no reasonable doubt that they didn't commit the crime, then yes.
I never really got the point of giving someone multiple life sentences. How does that differ from a single life sentence? Then again what is the point of keeping someone in prison for life if they along the way change their ways? People do change over time and see the error of their ways. Why should we continue to spend money keeping people in prison who have learned the error of their ways and wish to be free to live the good life they weren't doing before getting incarcerated?
It begs the question of whether we truly intend to call prison a place of rehabilitation or a place to seek out vengeance against those who have wronged innocent people.
It begs the question of whether we truly intend to call prison a place of rehabilitation or a place to seek out vengeance against those who have wronged innocent people.
Bluezone777 said:
But how can you ever determine if somebody has truly 'changed their ways'? And why, if they've commited something serious enough for a life sentence, should they get to live a normal life while others are still suffering from their crime?
I could how can you determine that someone hasn't changed their ways? If prison is not used to rehabilitate those who show signs that they have changed then it will only ensure that those who leave end up back inside.
Why should one person get out while another stays in when both did the same thing? That's because no two people or situations are ever alike and it is foolish to attempt to try a one size fits all solution for anything.
If you stick someone in for life and give them no way out then you will ensure they never bother to even consider rehabilitation themselves since there is no motivation to do so.
Why should one person get out while another stays in when both did the same thing? That's because no two people or situations are ever alike and it is foolish to attempt to try a one size fits all solution for anything.
If you stick someone in for life and give them no way out then you will ensure they never bother to even consider rehabilitation themselves since there is no motivation to do so.
Bluezone777 said:
Exactly. You can't, especially when they've been contained in a prison for however long they've been, I don't necessarily agree that prison works but it's really the only viable option without imposing massive danger to the public.
And wouldn't part of 'changing your ways' be accepting that you've done wrong and surely they'd realise that maybe they deserve to be there?
