|
|
Post by markdsouza on Feb 18, 2014 12:15:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kironreid on Mar 14, 2014 10:52:12 GMT
What is wrong with imprisoning someone for life for the worst crimes? In fact, it murder is committed deliberately with intention to kill and no mitigation why should imprisoning that person until they die be a reasonable punishment by the state on behalf of the public?
|
|
|
|
Post by markdsouza on Mar 16, 2014 13:53:29 GMT
My argument is based on the theoretical justifications for the phenomenon of punishment (at least in England & Wales). Several different propositions can be made about why we punish. For instance, we may say that we punish to protect the public from the criminal, or to deter offences, or to convey censure, or to rehabilitate etc. It's most likely that empirically the real justification for punishment is a combination of several, if not all, of these reasons. But whatever the underlying reasons, and no matter how strong they are, I think that by moving away from punishments like the death sentence, outlawing, and transportation for life, England & Wales has signalled that its general attitude towards punishment is that the punishment should not have the effect of permanently expelling an offender from society. I think that's a civilised view to take, but even if there is disagreement on the merits of that view, it is at least consistent with the said view of the limits of punishment not to award 'whole life' prison sentences. In fact, a whole life sentence is (to my knowledge) the only punishment left on the table that permanently expels a person from society. So for me it's not a question of whether D really deserves the whole life sentence punishment. It's a question of whether a state ought to be permanently expelling a person from society.
|
|
