[t-3]

If someone has absent or irresponsible parents, or parents who are violent themselves, when will they have a chance to learn anything else if you punish them with life imprisonment the moment they get into a fight past the age of majority? Your pacifist ideals are not bad, but the actual effect of sending people to prison for life from one fight would be horrific and incredibly cruel, not to mention that it would invariably be abused to target the poor and minority groups while the lawyer-on-retainer class get to avoid the consequences. To stop people from victimizing others repeatedly, the common method is to increase sentences for repeat offenders. Maybe that doesn't currently exist in the UK, but it's a much more a humane solution than life imprisonment without a realistic chance of redemption.

[ActorNightly]

The way to not go to prison is pretty simple - don't attack people. Don't even know why we are debating this. Once you do, you clearly aren't fit to be in society, and things like "humane" no longer apply to you. Poor or minority status doesn't matter. There is nothing about those two things that compel a person to go on the assault.

[komali2]

It's feels you simply don't have empathy or even imagination.

Your "cut and dry" philosophy flies in the face of reality.

A kid is raised in the hood, beaten by their parents, watches someone get shot to death in a drive by one day and the next week someone shot in the back by cops. In school they quickly learn that bullies leave you alone if you punch back. On the street doubly so, they learn demonstrating a willingness for violence mostly gets you left alone.

At 17 years old they're at a McDonald's and someone shoulder checks them. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it wasn't, but the kid tosses a "what the fuck?", and the other person had done it by accident but is mad at the reaction so on a whim says "fuck you bitch." Our main character throws a punch, a fight ensues, the cops come, he's arrested.

This person should be jailed forever?

This makes no sense to me from any analysis angle. Ethically, practically, capitalistically, no matter how I slice it I can't square it. If you argued for him to be immediately executed it would at least make a little bit of capitalistic sense and be logical within the context of a fucked up ethical system (a non evidence based one) but no instead you want them locked up for life.

Why? And why not argue instead for summary execution of the undesirables?