[sergiosgc]

In my country you can. There is also a 20 year limit to prison sentences, no matter the crime. The objective of the judicial system is not to punish but to recover dysfunctional society members. As such, it makes no sense to punish anyone with a life sentence, no matter the type (prison or fiduciary).

[Crito]

> There is also a 20 year limit to prison sentences, no matter the crime.

That seems mildly misleading. Sentences can be extended beyond 20 years as long as the person is still believed to be dangerous to society.

[sergiosgc]

Not in Portugal. They may extend to 25 by accumulation, but other than that, the limit is absolute.

You may conclude that someone is insane and force them to be institutionalized, but that is not prison, and the decision is not ever final.

[zanny]

I don't think I'd be really comfortable with convicted serial murderers walking around. Hell, any murderer. Manslaughter can be a mistake or an accident, but if you intentionally aggressively killed someone I'd rather not be walking past you on a street or participating with you in an open market...

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I also believe an essential function of prison is to remove the irredeemable from society so they aren't a threat anymore. I'm not sure you can classify anyone insane just for wanting to kill people, but I'm also not a psychologist. I also would not want to be the psychologist who released a serial murder considering him safe to return to society only for him to on another murder spree...

[sergiosgc]

It's hard to argue with a country that has such low criminality rate. The options are strange from an American perspective, but they work. Naturally there are many many other factors influencing crime rates, but the numbers point towards our position being the correct one, not the other way around.

Then again, I don't think we ever had a serial killer. Maybe one, in the sixties, still unsolved. It's just probabilities at work. At ten million citizens, the odds are low.

[krschultz]

Broad based crime rates and 'that one guy raped and killed a bunch of people' are two dramatically different things. Having a hard limit in sentences ignores the fact that in any population there are a tiny handful of outliers that can never be rehabilitated and should never see the light of day in free society again. Arguably the average punishment is too high but the extreme punishment is too low. If the maximum sentence is 25 years, one does a car thief get? Because I personaly feel that anyone that commits murder is more than 25x as bad for society as a thief.

[sergiosgc]

You are falling into the punishment trap. From the point of view of recovery of the individual, there is no such notion as 25x worse.

[serf]

What if the person committed that crime while under the influence of a prior mental illness that he or she has since sought help in correcting, and now recognizes their previous intent/action as criminal? What if the murder was due to a drug addiction that lead to mental illness, which has since been corrected?

It's my opinion that a society cannot simultaneously hope to 'cure mental illness', while also simultaneously locking up people who do the same things as the mentally ill without them ever having any hope of rehabilitation (life imprisonment). I have never felt as if the judiciary system should be an extension of personal vengeance; to take two people out of the active society as a murder/life imprisonment does seems more unhealthy for the society in the long run than if the person in prison had a realistic chance at a productive life through means of rehabilitation.

The placement of blame is just all wrong. I wouldn't feel bad as a psychologist releasing a would-be-future-murderer, because as a psychologist I would understand that it was my job to assess the chances rather than make the person. Of course they know there is a chance of 'relapse', because even a sane person has the outlying chance to snap and become psychotic under the right conditions. I am sure that the psychologist would be saddened at the relapse of his patient and at whatever damage was caused by the patient, but I would surely hope that the psychologist would not feel personally responsible for the actions of their patients.

[Natsu]

> What if the person committed that crime while under the influence of a prior mental illness that he or she has since sought help in correcting, and now recognizes their previous intent/action as criminal?

And what if they're a Schizophrenic, stop taking their meds (as such are wont to do) and murders someone even though they had been receiving help?

N.B.: this is not a hypothetical scenario, it describes one of the things that led to the brutal murder of my mother.

[thaumasiotes]

> Manslaughter can be a mistake or an accident, but if you intentionally aggressively killed someone I'd rather not be walking past you on a street or participating with you in an open market

It is my understanding that if you assault someone intending to injure them and accidentally kill them, that is murder in the second degree, unless they provoked you so much that the position of the law is "they were asking for it" (USA) (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-m... , http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/voluntary-mansl...). I can see your objection to serial killers, but the hypothetical 2nd-degree-murderer doesn't seem to be much risk unless you like to get into bar fights.

The same resource also points out that if anyone dies (and there's some sort of iffy connection to you) while you're committing a felony of any kind, you're guilty of murder. Robbing 7-11 with your buddy who you didn't realize was armed will get you convicted of murder if he happens to shoot and kill anyone.

[Tombone5]

Typically the observation is made that if you are a serial murderer you are not really to be considered sane and into closed treatment you go, not coming out until you are sane again which I guess is not ever if the crime is really gruesome.

[Tombone5]

Also, in regards to "any murderer", I belive that there really isn't much beyond the perspective of those asked that separate (some) terrorists from soldiers from murderers...

[collyw]

Soldiers are taking their orders from a higher authority. Not sure who is telling terrorists or murderers.