Do people deserve a second chance @ life after a serious crime ?

For most crimes yes, people can change and deserve a second chance. Some crimes however are so horrific that the person must never be released, and imo there's a case for the death penalty in these cases. I don't say "life should mean life", but I do think that judges should have the option of ensuring someone is never released (subject to appeals etc).
 
This is slightly morbid, but I remember a website that had quotes of the final words of inmates on death row, prior to them being electrocuted.

There's one I remember in particular, seems relevant to this discussion:

The act I committed to put me here was not just heinous, it was senseless. But the person that committed that act is no longer here — I am.

—Napoleon Beazley, executed in Texas on May 28, 2002
Click to expand...

I think people can change. I also think everyone deserves the right to atone. I don't know what you do with people who show no remorse, but they definitley never will if you kill them.
 
Richdog said:
Serious paedophilia, serial murder or serial rape = you have no further chance at life imo.
Click to expand...

What is "non-serious paedophilia" what if only one murder or rape? Surely by being caught after one, you prevent the serial aspect, doesnt mean they won't go on and kill again if released?
 
The question is best answered by asking:

"Do you want revenge or rehabilitation ?"

If the former then lock them up, throw away the key and make them suffer. If (far more reasonably IMO) you want the latter then as long as they will not re-offend there is no moral justification to not release them.

The difficulty is in judging the likelihood of re-offence.
 
i think there is chance after anything except murder (and maybe a few other things) - if the other person cannot recover then you should pay for it, forever.
 
Hodders said:
The question is best answered by asking:

"Do you want revenge or rehabilitation ?"
Click to expand...

There is no place for revenge in our justice system, nor should there be.

People should be released if they are no longer an danger to society, have served their punishment and are rehabilitated.
 
Depends on the crime and also the motivation.

I mean Murdering someone because they support another football team, or murdering them to steal their money etc is very differant to murdering someone because they either tried to kill you or killed someone you love.

The few crimes that I think comitting void your human rights without question are Rape and Pedophillia.
 
Fenris said:
The few crimes that I think comitting void your human rights without question are Rape and Pedophillia.
Click to expand...

Any Pedophillia?

A man who has it it but only ever looks at a few pictures on the internet and resists all urgers to actually do anything with a child deservers no human rights for the next 30,40, 50 years?
 
Well, most crimes are judged against society, and society changes. E.g. homosexuality was 'illegal'. Another culture may not put any criminality on theft etc.. So it's a very difficult question.

The other issue is repentance. If I murdered someone and was given life, but truly repented. And it turns out the guy I murdered was raping children... should I be looked up for good?
 
meghatronic said:
Well, most crimes are judged against society, and society changes. E.g. homosexuality was 'illegal'. Another culture may not put any criminality on theft etc.. So it's a very difficult question.

The other issue is repentance. If I murdered someone and was given life, but truly repented. And it turns out the guy I murdered was raping children... should I be looked up for good?
Click to expand...

Did you murder him because he was raping children?
 
Tefal said:
Any Pedophillia?

A man who has it it but only ever looks at a few pictures on the internet and resists all urgers to actually do anything with a child deservers no human rights for the next 30,40, 50 years?
Click to expand...

Good point, should have specified.

I suppose your statement kind of makes the thread, it really does depend not only on the crime, but on the extent of the crime.

I would say, in terms of pedophilia, it is the people who molest/rape children (obviousely) or create the material like pictures/videos etc.
 
Tefal said:
meh you'd have to take it up with an appeal judge.

but in the court of public opinion it would have made a difference.
Click to expand...
My point was, a few people in the thread want to 'throw away the key'. I was pointing out how it is never as cut and dry as that. And why we have appeals.
 
oneale90 said:
No. A crime is a crime, they made their choice when they commited those crimes. In most cases, second chances lead to more crime and so begins the cycle.
Click to expand...

So would it be fair to say that perfection is all you ask for if you don't believe in second chances? My point is that while second chances may lead to more crime if you don't allow for them at all then you can never know if someone has changed.
 
Depends what the crime is, but generally my answer is no.

I saw a programme once, where these adolescents made a fire down a dead end road. Firemen came out, the kids blocked them in and then started throwing huge rocks at them, obviously injuring some of the firemen in the process. I think that warrants the death penalty to be honest...
 
This is recursive though. I you guive people a second try, then why not a 3rd try, aor a 4th try. how many murders do you go before you draw trhe line? For me, that is definitely a 1 murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom