At the today's Penal Law theoretical practice we've opened an interesting topic about the efficiency of the life-long prison sentence. So I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Some meaterial you can argue against:
The punishments have two types of prevention: general and special prevention. Life-long prison sentence would serve the purpose of the general prevention, showing the people what will happen if they break the law. But what about the special prevention? The punishment is supposed to deter the perpetrator from further breaches of law and resocialise him/her. If the sentence is life-long, wouldn't that mean the resocialisation factor will go to waste? The prisoner will become indifferent regarding everything, thus we can witness an increase of violence in prison facilities. Not only that, but also when a suspect will be arrested, he won't care anymore whether he lives or not, because he knows he won't get out of the prison alive(more potential danger to the police officers maybe? not saying that officers shouldn't take risks, mind you).

On the other hand, we have people doing horrible crimes, like today I heard of a father killing his 11- and 9-year old daughters with a kitchen mallet. Or there was an other guy, who took three women hostages, tortured them and then burned them alive. How they be resocialised? What about the victims'loved ones, how would they feel? They wouldn't care about the prisoner's feelings, would they? Some even live in fear. Such criminal minds deserve to be cast and isolated out of the society?

So we have the victim and the perpetrator, both with different sides. This issue really tickled my curiosity and I don't remember this debate. What do you think?

Oh, and please leave the death penalty out of this, if you can. Try very very hard, please.

Life long sentances are a necessity. It will not deter the criminal from wanting to commit a crime again, but it will prevent them from actually commiting the crime again and that is the most important thing to consider. There may be an increase in prison violence if the prisoners consider their lives essentially over, but if the prisoners do consider their lives essentially over then they won't mind the violence and for those in there who will get out it makes prison a worse place so the deterence will be greater for them.

Of course, if the prisoner can be psychologically altered not to commit the crime again then in many ways he is not the same person who commited the crime originally and should as such be released. Since no one's made the clockwork orange work in real life yet, life sentances are still the best option, but they may become unnecessary in the future if such procedures can be perfected.

I agree with zed, They know that they are likely to get life in prison if they molest, rape, then kill two little girls. I think that they get what they have coming because they know the consequences and do it anyways. We can't simply allow people to claim change after the horrible things they have done. Perhaps if the murder wasn't cold blooded then they may be allowed a new trial after x years.
Of course prison is going to be incredibly violent, that would be where all of the ****ed up and not so ****ed up people go. Except they're more inclined to actually kill someone in prison because they have nothing to lose. Though one could argue that because of that fact they don't get thrills anymore and could get the opposite effect.

I'm with Zed on this as well. The main point I focus on here is that a life-long sentence has a chance of reprieve. If a person is sentenced to life, and years later is declared "rehabilitated" or even "innocent", then they can leave.

And I don't see why we have to leave the death penalty out of this. You can't argue against a life sentence for a person that has no chance of being rehabilitated without bringing the death penalty into the discussion. If not a life sentence, then what? A life sentence is better than no sentence, right?

Quote from Abyssal

I agree with zed, They know that they are likely to get life in prison if they molest, rape, then kill two little girls. I think that they get what they have coming because they know the consequences and do it anyways. We can't simply allow people to claim change after the horrible things they have done. Perhaps if the murder wasn't cold blooded then they may be allowed a new trial after x years.
Of course prison is going to be incredibly violent, that would be where all of the ****ed up and not so ****ed up people go. Except they're more inclined to actually kill someone in prison because they have nothing to lose. Though one could argue that because of that fact they don't get thrills anymore and could get the opposite effect.

When criminals go to prison it's not like they think they can do whatever they want. Many people who get the life sentence actually become better people in prison, like one man who shot and killed a 17 year old girl, and several years later became a counselor for the other prisoners. He was never released, but he could still help people, and maybe make up for what he did.

In my opinion, the life sentence is a great thing.

I totally agree, I was just stating that typically people who kill other people in cold blood are likely not going to change. But if they show remorse and genuinely didn't want that outcome, of course they can change, anyone can change it just isn't likely enough for it to be reliable. I also don't think that though they changed into great people that there good deeds out weigh the mistakes of there past.
I am also pretty certain they know they can't do whatever they want, it just doesn't make them care enough until they where foolish enough to make the mistakes.

Quote from Zed

Life long sentances are a necessity. It will not deter the criminal from wanting to commit a crime again, but it will prevent them from actually commiting the crime again and that is the most important thing to consider. There may be an increase in prison violence if the prisoners consider their lives essentially over, but if the prisoners do consider their lives essentially over then they won't mind the violence and for those in there who will get out it makes prison a worse place so the deterence will be greater for them.

But how can you know for sure who can be resocialised and who can't be? The costs of them staying in prison aren't a small thing either, since it reaches all down to the tax-payers' pockets.

Also, the increased rate of violence wasn't a concern to those who you have directed it at, but it's aimed at those who don't really serve a life-long death sentence and have their whole lives before them. Not all of the prisoners are the same. It's also troublesome for the guards, isn't it? There's a shortage of guards in Slovenia and I can't really imagine what would've happened if prisoners started rioting.

Of course, if the prisoner can be psychologically altered not to commit the crime again then in many ways he is not the same person who commited the crime originally and should as such be released.

Yeah, that's the argument of the people who are against the life-long prison sentences. I'm not sure what's the chance of people being sentenced to the life-long prison punishment getting a parrol for nice behavior. And if the judgement was finished and he hasn't appealed, I don't know what's the chance of them getting out.

Since no one's made the clockwork orange work in real life yet, life sentances are still the best option, but they may become unnecessary in the future if such procedures can be perfected.

I don't really know what a clockwork orange is, since I haven't seen this movie. But I do hope that penalogy will come up with a solution, like better researches of human psychology or better alternatives. A better organization in the prisons also sound like a good idea.

Quote from Ash

I'm with Zed on this as well. The main point I focus on here is that a life-long sentence has a chance of reprieve. If a person is sentenced to life, and years later is declared "rehabilitated" or even "innocent", then they can leave.

I don't really think it's that simple. See my reply to Zed's post.

And I don't see why we have to leave the death penalty out of this. You can't argue against a life sentence for a person that has no chance of being rehabilitated without bringing the death penalty into the discussion. If not a life sentence, then what? A life sentence is better than no sentence, right?

If you're able to discuss about death penalty, living the other punishments behind, then I think you're able to discuss the life-long prison sentence as such aswell. Please stay on topic.

And just because life sentence is better than no sentence, doesn't mean it's a good choice.

Quote from Fusion

When criminals go to prison it's not like they think they can do whatever they want. Many people who get the life sentence actually become better people in prison, like one man who shot and killed a 17 year old girl, and several years later became a counselor for the other prisoners. He was never released, but he could still help people, and maybe make up for what he did.
In my opinion, the life sentence is a great thing.

He never got released. The prime objective of all the punishments is prevention, like I said in the OP. To punish the perpetrator and make them realise they made a mistake and get them back to society. If he got better in a few years and never got released, where's the justice in that?

Quote from Abyssal

I totally agree, I was just stating that typically people who kill other people in cold blood are likely not going to change. But if they show remorse and genuinely didn't want that outcome, of course they can change, anyone can change it just isn't likely enough for it to be reliable. I also don't think that though they changed into great people that there good deeds out weigh the mistakes of there past.
I am also pretty certain they know they can't do whatever they want, it just doesn't make them care enough until they where foolish enough to make the mistakes.

This is hard to judge, since you never know what people went trough. What if it was an affect, what if they need therapy? I'm still a bit iffy about this argument of mine.


Haha, that was a long post.

I haven't read whole the thread, and I don't intend to, but I am going to say that you should all watch The Shawshank Redemption, it deals with some stuff like this.

But in Shawshank, Morgan Freeman was up for parole every so often and Tim Robbins was innocent... so I don't see how that helps the discussion of life sentences without the possibility of parole.

But anyway, I'm with Zed and Ash. Specifically, Ash asked how this particular discussion could be complete while avoiding discussing the death penalty, not how any discussion of life in prison could avoid death penalty talks, Mantha. This discussion seems to directly indicate that one side of the fence says there is a better way to deal with such criminals. What better way is there then? I feel this is more complicated of a discussion than has been let on.

I didn't mean to set the discussion that broad, I only wanted to discuss the life-long prison sentence. I don't see why would we need to be dragging death penalty into this. We don't even have death penalty here.

I've also hinted a possible alternative in my long post, but I guess you didn't read the whole thing. I don't blame you though, haha.

I did read the whole thing, Mantha. Your hint must be very subtle. Is it possibly something to do with psychiatric institutions? I think I'm missing what you want to say.

I don't really know what a clockwork orange is, since I haven't seen this movie. But I do hope that penalogy will come up with a solution, like better researches of human psychology or better alternatives. A better organization in the prisons also sound like a good idea.

. . .

Yeah, that's what I thought the hint was. But I was asking you to specifically elaborate.

I think they should legalise torture for people who don't commit crimes so then everyone would commit crimes, which would = more revenue for small businesses such as my parent's discount store because we would then be able to sell fake Yu-Gi-Oh and pokemon cards without getting screwed over.

Quote from Real

But in Shawshank, Morgan Freeman was up for parole every so often and Tim Robbins was innocent... so I don't see how that helps the discussion of life sentences without the possibility of parole.

I was talking shit just so people would go see it, because it is a great film.