TLHLIM
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
I wouldn’t shed any tears if that’s what he was forced to do, but in a vacuum these are important questions if you want to actually solve the problem. I actually agree that the left needs to be open to changing the way they look at this issue, but simply hand-waving away any nuance whatsoever and insisting upon there being no possibility of parole no matter what the circumstances were behind the crime won’t likely get us anywhere either. I’m perfectly fine with the solution involving this individual not being released from prison, but we can and should figure out what a successful corrections system looks like to reduce headcount in prisons, combat recidivism and maintain public safety. An absolute, no-exceptions policy of life in prison without the possibility of parole even if you had an extenuating circumstance likely runs contrary to the 8th Amendment. The question I’m posing here is how do we handle the exceptions?
I don’t really feel sorry for the criminal in this case, and I’m not really approaching this through the lens of empathy, but as a matter of practicality. If someone kills someone and a jury finds it was caused by insanity, and there is a long and documented record of that individual improving and proving to no longer be a danger to society, we should at least brainstorm what we should do with that information without accusing everyone involved of being a crime-friendly leftist.
And again, I haven’t had a chance to learn what led to the insanity claim or what evidence has supported his release so I’m not prepared to endorse this particular decision by Kentucky.
chop2chip
Well-known member
If someone kills someone, they shouldn’t be out of prison in 8 years. Ever. For any reason. We don’t need to learn about the conditions that forced them to commit the act. I don’t understand how you can begin to argue this though the lens of what’s practical. The amount of burden on society to monitor violent criminals/murders released from prisons far outstrips the practicality of keeping them in prison. If anything, the insanity history further increases the risk of recidivism.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
that's the rub. Insanity makes them MORE likely to be violent
I think that’s generally fair, particularly in the way in which this murder occurred. But if it’s not 8 years, is it 10? 20? And at that point, we do need to know the circumstances and what they needed in order to not be a danger to society. In general, I’d think the standards needs to be stringent and unable to be changed based on available beds in a state hospital or whatever, but if someone’s mental illness leads to them committing a murder and at some point they are eligible to be released, don’t you think we should be working toward calibrating those standards and policies rather than dismissing the discussion outright and calling for execution?
I suspect you might be surprised by where I’d draw my line in terms of these types of cases and there are a lot of people who’d likely never be released based on where I would. All I’m saying here is that as long as a portion of the right’s response is literally to just violently execute the crazies no matter what, then nobody with any heft is proposing a viable solution to a genuine societal problem. I think an important first step is identifying what it should take to actually treat and/or reform someone who committed a violent and insane murder back into society. Because if the only two answers available are “it’s racist to even ask that” and “we should do public executions immediately upon conviction” then we’re just going to be stuck with the broken system.
Again, I may be very squishy on things like rights of the accused, treatment of the incarcerated, etc, but I’m not pro-violent crazies on the street. I am not really an expert on the how, but I wouldn’t allow for the release of a person convicted of a violent crime without some really goddamn compelling evidence of their recovery. Honestly I think that anybody who is found to be criminally insane should generally be subject to the same term of detainment. If you’re insane enough to commit a murder, it is not typically something you can just talk through with your therapist in an afternoon session. But with 20 years of intensive monitoring and treatment with clear benchmarks hit and specific conditions that must be met, I’d be open to that person being up for parole in the same way in which a non-insane person would be for the same crime. But I don’t think it should be anywhere near as “easy” as it is today, and that the left doesn’t have the right plan. But I think if we actually addressed this through detainment with proper treatment, we could actually get the insane people off the streets while not treating an insane person inhumanely.
I’m a believer in the reality that some mental illness is essentially impossible to fully recover from, and there are some people I think would have to spend the rest of their life in a facility.
But if someone had a clear and detailed recovery story that showed exactly why this person is able to re-enter society, I do think that would change my stance.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I understand your qualitative factors (person demonstrated they are recovered and present no danger to society.. whatever that means).
But I am more interested in a quantitative answer.
You asked me for a number (8/10/20 years?) for murder and I told you my number is life in prison. I never want to live next door to murderer.
What’s your number? How many years would someone need to demonstrate good behavior in prison before you felt comfortable living next door to them?
sturg33
I
You are bending over backwards trying to find a rational to let a child killer out of prison
This person spent 8 years in prison for murdering a boy assaulting 2 others.
Everyone, including you, should be much closer to the position of "life in prison no matter what" than "8 years of good behavior qualifies a release"
I just dont get it man. We saw what happened to the Ukranian girl bc we let a dude out 13 FUCKING TIMES
But I think my problem is that you’re reducing what I find to be a necessarily qualitative question into a quantitative one. I can’t really answer it with a number because it varies from like maybe 10 to absolutely never. I personally think the context cannot be stripped from the question enough to answer it in a meaningful way. It’s like asking for my number for someone on the sex offender registry. If they did something heinous, I’d never want to live next door, but if they got drunk and peed on a park bench, I’d maybe bring the dude a 6 pack and be friends.
chop2chip
Well-known member
You’re still misunderstanding my point. I’m not defending this release, and the answer I’m actively suggesting would not see him on the streets today. I just think it’s at least worth exploring what we should be looking for in terms of standards for recovery for someone up for parole in these cases.
sturg33
I
No I understand perfectly.
When given news that a child killer was released from prison after 8 years, your immediate instinct was to "explore what we should accept as a standard to meet to let someone like those free"
Thats where you went immediately. Your heart is always alligned to the criminal
The devil is in the details, basically. If someone had some sort of explainable, isolated mental health crisis that prompted the act, and it could be shown exactly how and why that event was unlikely to recur, I’m sure I wouldn’t rush to bring the guy into my house or anything, but I think I could understand it.
The real issue is that this is all a fun little hypothetical, but we won’t ever get a chance to know the answers to those questions, but we do eventually let people out of prison even when they’re convicted. So I think it’s most important that we look for ways to address that reality. Whether a murderer gets out of prison after 8 years or 25 years, I’m more concerned with how we spent those years preparing for that endpoint.