-Removed-I agree with you somewhat.
Although I think the concept of "punishment" is archaic and self-defeating.
The purpose of incarceration should be protection and rehabilitation.
If the criminal is no longer and threat and has been rehabilitated then he should be free.
That decision is a tough one best left to professionals - rather than the internet mob.
-Removed-The same could be said of any convicted person who causes the death of a person, such as a drunken driver, a violent partner or someone stabbing someone. I worked with a person who got stabbed and murdered alongside their partner on their doorstep by their son in law from another country seeking revenge for his wife having ‘escaped’ home with their son. He got 8 years.
I don’t know how we differentiate between these crimes and whether consideration should be taken for younger victims? Our prisons are already overcrowded. Do you think we should build more to keep these people forever?
1 edit
-Removed-That question is left wide open because if the drunk driver drives drunk again, good chance he could kill another person without getting some help for his drinking problem. Could we say the same about a child sex murderer or rapist? Is everyone able to be rehabilitated? My guess would be NO.
-VR
-Removed-From what I have read there is a very weak correlation between
punishment and deterrence. Not least because offenders normally
assume they won't be caught. This recent(ish) article is interesting.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal-justice
btw: No offence intended to you or anyone by my use of "internet mob"
-Removed-I don’t know how often these sort of offenders are released or the likelihood that they will reoffend. I would imagine that the forensic professionals involved in their assessment and treatment during their prison sentence would be the ones to advise upon the conditions by which such people are safely managed and supervised in the community.