Notice how I mentioned it is both a form of punishment and rehabilitation, although its main meaning is rehabilitation, hence the activities in prison.
I am fully aware that some prisoners will be in there for the rest of their lives, but just because some prisoners are there for thew rest of their lives doesn't change that prison is also a rehabilitation center.
Some people stay in prison until the day they die, and rightly so. If an 80-year-old is convicted of murder and given 25 years in prison, that's not for rehabilitation, that's so he never sets foot in the free world again. You're trying to take the moral high-ground and accuse anyone, who believes this man should rot in prison, of being unreasonable.
I did not say they are unreasonable. I said they believe he should be in prison is because of personal feelings of hatred towards him for taking someones life. That isn't unreasonable, it is quite reasonable. It is not, however, necessarily not the correct course of action.
Murderers get life in jail. The murder of 270~ people should get 270~ life sentences, not 8 years. The fact he has cancer, and is dying (apparently), is the moot point here. That man should rot in jail for the rest of his miserable "life."
I don't think he should get 1 year for every person he killed, 11 year minimum for each person he killed, double for kids, would be better imo.
You ask why it matters whether he dies in prison or gets to spend his last days with his family. No, it won't enlighten the families, but yes, it will slightly, ever so slightly, ease their horrendous pain. They'll know that the man responsable for killing their loved ones is going to die in prison, and will not receive the pleasure of seeing his family again, ad pleasure he denied 270 other people. This isn't and eye for an eye, this is a complete and utter lack of justice.
As I said, it only serves to ease their pain. However, the only, and I mean only, reason they would feel more pain now than they did before is because they learned of the fact that he's released. He wasn't pardoned for what he did, he was released, to live his remaining few weeks with his family. Whether or not they consider it justice is a moot point, and goes back to the "ego" think I talked about before.
You don't need to have known any of the people who died on that tragic aeroplane, or even any of their families, to understand that this man being released because he has an illness will make an already tragic experience so much worse.
I'm sure it will, but their pain will pass.
However, it appears you disagree? Does that mean EVERY PRISONER in every prison who has a terminal illness will be released, no matter the crime? They don't come much worse than 270 counts of murder, so I await your response with great curiosity. Should we release every criminal who is terminally ill? Or just criminals with a government willing to pay a great deal of money for the prisoner's release?
Unbefuckinglievable.
If they don't run a risk of repeating their crime once outside, and if it is certain they will die within a week, or at the very most 2-3 weeks, then yes. I do not think that is entirely unreasonable.
sorry but in my opinion for certain crimes there IS no rehabilitation. noone here is talking about a drug dealer, Rehabilitation for murding 250+ people, thats just laughable. and as far as rapist not being able to live a normal life after they get out. GOOD, they are lucky to be walking free period, i would have no problem with life in prison or even capital punishment for rapist. guess what, i guarantee you whoever he raped isnt living a normal life.
The problem with this is, at least in Sweden, women are blaming men for raping them as a way of revenge or as an act of hatred over their boyfriends breaking up with them. Or even because they regret it the next day, even though they were willing during the act.
These men shouldn't have to suffer for the rest of their lives simply because a woman hold a grudge against them.
As for the men that truly did rape someone, it is horrible, I agree. Especially for the woman. Personally I think forced castration and rehabilitation is a decent punishment for sexual offenders, as most of the time, it is a psychological problem. While it isn't an excuse for their actions, they obviously need help. It would be much cheaper to rehabilitate them and castrate them then it would be to lock them up for good. That space would be better used for murderers, no?
Also, i wonder what the reguler murderer joes chances are at getting released on "compassionate grounds" you know, the guy that only killed 1 or 2 people but DOESN'T have an entire oil rich country pulling strings, and offering deals for him?
Probably none, the guy was lucky in that sense.
Oh, and before you ask - If someone I knew were among those victims, I would probably be upset they released him too. And I would probably bitch and whine then too, because, as I said, feelings would be involved. Feelings have a way of interfering.
Hence why I asked if you knew someone amongst them, as you're mixing personal feelings in to it.
I do not lack sympathy, I can imagine well how they feel, but it is that, and imagine, and doesn't have to interfere. It isn't actually a real emotion, unlike what those that DID lose someone have. They have all the right in the world to complain. That being said, the anger will still pass, as it is nothing remotely similar to what they felt when they learned that someone they knew died.
