[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.