undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrofo16y ago0 comments

OK in that case, it's semantics.

You can call it whatever you want, as long as you keep certain people forever excluded from society. Preferably at low cost.

0 comments

thatcat6y ago

It's not semantics. Every judgment is not accurate, systems need to account for their own fallibility.

rofo1OP6y ago

Not sure why we are talking about accuracy(?) all of a sudden, but goes without saying that I am talking about actionable convictions where the party is guilty, given based on facts and without prejudice.

My main point is people who commit certain severe crimes (think about serial killers, raping children, mutilation, premeditated murders/arson/lying in wait, etc.; these people should remain behind bars for all eternity. That's just my opinion; I can't imagine going to the families victims and telling them "dont worry, they will be good in a couple of years, and will get to live their lives thanks to our tax dollars, while your son/daughter rots in a grave".

There's no justice, no humanity in that.

aalleavitch6y ago

People can commit these crimes for a wide array of reasons and under a wide array of circumstances. Someone could commit a heinous crime while under the influence of powerful narcotics but still be a perfectly decent person once they've been treated for their addiction. It's not possible to say who can and who cannot be rehabilitated at the moment of sentencing. It's something you should update your judgement on continuously throughout their sentence.

And in my mind, reconciliation is always better than revenge. I should think any family should be happier to know that the killer lived to deeply regret their crimes and become a better person than to think that somewhere out there is someone locked in a cage wallowing in resentment and still thinks what they did was right.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse