> As many of them acknowledge, they have been rightly punished for a long time. But, ask yourself as you watch the video, how long is long enough?

I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society.

I get that people want closure/revenge, and understand that. I'm sure I would feel the same in many cases. But ... it just doesn't help anything. And sure there's an argument for it being preventative (don't do the crime or you'll do the time), but lots of studies have shown that's has little validity.

> None of us want to be defined solely by the person we were in our youth, or by the worst thing we ever did. The men serving life without parole feel the same way.

Fair, but if it's likely that you're the type of person that _will_ do catastrophic harm to society again if you get out, then there's a fair argument that you should not be out.

> I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society.

Sure, but general deterrence benefits the society, too. Case in point: for many years, California effectively decriminalized petty theft, and it caused a lot of grief to normal people. That's an argument for harsher punishment: even if most shoplifters / porch pirates / smash-and-grab people are not hardened criminals, you want to send a message to anyone contemplating that lifestyle.

To give another example: almost no one gets behind the wheel with the intent to kill. But if you severely punish drunk / negligent driving, more people will pause before doing it.

>I am of the opinion that incarceration should be "for the benefit of society"; that the person should be behind bars because because they are a threat to society. If they're done with thing because, they may do it again. And that incarceration should be working helping that person become one that would _not_ repeat that crime. Life sentences should only ever be the case for someone that will always be a threat to society.

How do you know whether a murderer won't be a repeat murderer?

[dead]