Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
If he is granted parole it means he is suitable to be released. America has such ridiculous prison sentences to begin with. Punishment is irrational. Anyone who says he should be killed, or hopes that he "got his" in prison is really no better than him.
Anders Behring Breivik (guy who killed 77 people) was convicted of mass murder, causing a fatal explosion, and terrorism, and he got the MAXIMUM sentence in Norway, which was only 21 years.
Yes most developed countries have come to the conclusion that longterm prison sentences are useless. America is the anomaly, where they have no problem sentencing a youth to life without parole.
This is a disingenuous stance to take if you're not going to point out the differences between America's prisons and Norway's prisons, of which there are many.
It's not only Norway. Look at sentencing for comparable crimes between the USA and Canada. The USA is the only developed country hat has life without parole.
I'm not disagreeing with you, for the record. Prison systems throughout the rest of the world focus more on rehabilitation instead of punishment, like in America. Just thought it needed to be added.
Yeah, some countries (Norway being one of them) have concentrated efforts to adopt more of a restorative justice model in their approach. Some people will bring up the [21-year] max sentencing for heinous crimes (such as Anders Breivik above) which serves little purpose other than to try and negate the legitimacy of their approach to justice by appealing to people's emotions. It's a moralizing type of statement, and a train of thought which may influence one to refuse to acknowledge positive-affirming data of the successes of this type of justice model in a country like Norway (significant statistics on a macro-level rather than a micro-level).
What it also fails to mention is the data, in a larger context, shows they are much more successful in areas such as recidivism rates, successful reintegration back into society, etc. America, on the other hand, is far more adherent to the values of retributive justice as a theory of punishment - one key difference here probably being that prison is an
industry in America. Our rulers prefer poor people to continue being criminals upon release, so that they may get locked up and commodified into working slaves all over again.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathleen_Daly2/Revisiting-the-relationship-between-retributive-and-restorative-justice.pdfhttps://digitalcommons.hope.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2301&context=faculty_publicationshttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1889&context=sjsj
edit: also wanted to say that "If he is granted parole it means he is suitable to be released." is not really a valid argument, given that it's entirely circular. "If he is granted parole it means he's been deemed suitable to be released by the state" is probably all you were saying and i'm being pedantic