In other words, he has a right to work towards redemption.
He can study necromancy for the rest of his life, and attempt to raise his victim from the grave. That’s his right. If he accomplishes it, we can talk about clemency.
His right to seek redemption isn’t being infringed upon by locking him up permanently. It is the permanence of the death he caused that is denying him redemption.
deleted by creator
You are not including the “cost” of recidivism.
If he kills again after you release him, you have to include that “cost” on top of everything you spent to try to bring him back into society. Even if you get the recidivism rate down to an extraordinary 1%, 1% of the value of an innocent life is worth more than the costs of caging a hundred murderers for the rest of their lives.
When you include the typical risks of recidivism, the cost of rehabilitation greatly exceeds that of permanent incarceration.
He might save a life that, in prison or dead, he could not have saved. He might save twenty, even a million.
Sure. He might save more lives than anyone who has ever existed. The chances of that happening are as good as winning the lottery, but hey, it could happen.
He might also take another life. Or twenty. Or a million. The chances of that are substantially higher: far more people lose the lottery than win anything at all.
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. The best approach to playing the lottery is to lock up the money you would have used, and never let it out to buy a ticket.
The “other” in this case being the predator who deliberately and maliciously inserted his knife blade into a human body for the express purpose of destroying that human.
It’s not psychopathic behavior to decide that such a person constitutes a threat, and should be separated from society by any necessary means available.
The worst thing that can possibly happen is they reform their lives and some kid decides they are worthy of emulation.
No, the best thing they can do for society is remain locked up for the rest of their lives.
The point is that despite murder being a horrific crime, as a society, we have moved past defining people as singularly evil for all killings.
We have not, and we should never move “past” that position.
To the extent that they understand not to pull of shit like stabbing people, at least.
Your standards suck. Get some better ones.
My decision to give or withhold a second chance for this kid is irrelevant.
He can try as hard as he wants to dig redemption out of his victim’s grave, but it’s simply not possible. Unless you’re alleging this kid is some kind of necromancer, he is fundamentally incapable of redemption.
Save the pshrinks for kids who can be saved.
Honestly, this is probably the best news that the Korean Peninsula has had in 70 years. Anything to start dragging the hermit kingdom out of its cave isn’t entirely bad news.
A youth justice system is for dealing with kids and teens who shoplift, or break noise ordinances, or run away from home, or abuse illicit substances, or any number of “boundary exploring” behaviors.
A youth justice system is not the appropriate venue for dealing with “kids” so lacking in moral fiber as to deliberately and maliciously kill another person.
The tolerance we have for “youthful indiscretion” does not and should not extend to this degree of violence. A youth justice system is not an appropriate venue for those determined to be fundamentally irredeemable.
They will not understand that humans should be drawn with 2 arms
Hitler went to prison, and turned it to his advantage.
I want Trump to have a stroke while taking a dump, collapse, and ultimately drown on toilet water and his own, bloody excrement.
They do, but “rightsholders” suck harder. And the tech companies oppose the measures the rightsholders are pushing them to adopt.
Here, the enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but they aren’t my enemy.
Oh no. Anyway…
possession and sharing of its instruction manual is being charged as a terrorist offense.
Oi! You got a loisence for that PDF?!?
Yeah, with adequate coordination, the gorillas should prevail in a 1v3. But I think they tend to fight more like individuals than as a pack.
Gorillas don’t have much for protection. The bear has 4" of fat “armor”. The gorillas won’t be able to bite or tear flesh.
My thinking is that if the bear is able to grab one of the gorillas, it will be disabled pretty much instantly. Unless the remaining gorilla(s) can press their momentary advantage while the bear is distracted, it’s just going to rip them apart one by one.
1v4, they might have enough clout to keep the bear immobilized long enough to kill it.
Polar bears are three times the size and weight of a silverback. They could likely prevail in a 1v2 or 1v3. 1v4 would be a fair fight.
They definitely don’t want those troops coming back home and talking about their time in the west.