[rofo1]

> "In Norway, the punishment is just to take away someone's liberty. The other rights stay. Prisoners can vote, they can have access to school, to health care; they have the same rights as any Norwegian citizen. Because inmates are human beings. They have done wrong, they must be punished, but they are still human beings." > "In Norway, all will be released - there are no life sentences," he reminds me.

Really? Even with this low recidivism rate, I find this hard to accept somehow.

I don't even think deranged people like serial killers and pedophile rapists can change.

Even if they could theoretically change, why would we accept them back in society and spend any resources on them after they did that?

That doesn't make us more human. We are redefining 'humanity' to match our politics. But we have evolved over millions of years. Those two things can't coexist.

(edit: removed a paragraph, it was kinda OT)

[matthewmacleod]

There are no life sentences; this does not mean that individuals can’t be detained indefinitely. If a prisoner is not judged fit for release, their sentence can be extended by up to I think four or five years at a time. The Norwegian prison system isn’t releasing flocks of “serial killers and paedophile rapists” as a result of not imposing life sentences at conviction.

[kazen44]

Also, i don't know if norway has the same kind of system (i assume it does. Most western european nations have this). but "terbeschikkingstelling"(TBS) is usually a punishment for people with severe issues like serial killers.

see: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terbeschikkingstelling_(Nederl...

[sombremesa]

Link for English speakers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

[rofo1]

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.

[thatcat]

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

[rofo1]

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.

[aalleavitch]

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.

[aalleavitch]

> I don't even think deranged people like serial killers and pedophile rapists can change.

It's a lot better to base this judgement on real data than on the vengeful feelings of the wronged.

Humans aren't adapted to the possibility of reconciliation, our knee-jerk reaction is revenge out of past necessities. But if we can afford to rehabilitate someone, we absolutely should. We should never limit the rights we grant people purely out of vengeance.

[rofo1]

> Humans aren't adapted to the possibility of reconciliation, our knee-jerk reaction is revenge out of past necessities. But if we can afford to rehabilitate someone, we absolutely should. We should never limit the rights we grant people purely out of vengeance.

I don't think punishment for criminal action is "revenge" or "vengeance". In theory, it is suppose to stop the possibility of it occurring again and hopefully deter people attempting it.

My opinion is that society needs to be protected from certain people.

If you tell me with a straight face that if someone mutilated your kids and did unimaginable things and you are truly fine with accepting that he will live his life as if nothing happened after a few years, I wouldn't believe you are human.

I can be downvoted to oblivion, but it won't change certain facts and realities.

[aalleavitch]

> I don't think punishment for criminal action is "revenge" or "vengeance". In theory, it is suppose to stop the possibility of it occurring again and hopefully deter people attempting it.

Again, why wouldn't we leave this determination to the data? If the effect of punishment is practical, then we should look at the practical results of punishment versus rehabilitation.

Do you want to live in a safer society, or do you want to live in a society that fulfills your emotional need for retribution at the cost of efficacy and the rights of others?

[imtringued]

>it is suppose to stop the possibility of it occurring again

It doesn't do that.

[woodandsteel]

>I don't even think deranged people like serial killers and pedophile rapists can change.

Assuming you are right, the great majority of prisoners fall into other groups. These prisoners are going to be released at some point, and if you use this effective rehabilitation program, then they will be much less likely to commit more crimes against citizens in the community.

[rolltiide]

Well pedophiles and rapists arent all given life sentences in the US system, it varies greatly

So which part do you disagree with? That prisoners can vote?

[kazen44]

the fact that prisoners cannot vote seems bizarre to me. This seems like a massive tool to prevent your political opponents from voting.

[rolltiide]

Yeah both the 13th and 14th amendments let states create arbitrary conditions for voting for state and federal issues. The only carveout being to prove that its a racially motivated condition and most of the states have matter of fact prisoner disenfranchisement that existed long before any correlation with race, so there isnt currently a challenge except for individual legislatures to make new laws.

[rofo1]

I find that unbearable and senseless, doesn't matter who does it.

Certain people need to be excluded from the society and there is nothing wrong with it. Why do we insist otherwise?

How did we manage to convince ourselves that is "more humane"?

[rolltiide]

When the prison population got too big and ensnaring prisoners became too efficient

It is undermining the productivity of our society when we have such a large marginalized population that is unemployed and desperate