Countries Have Outlawed Life Imprisonment.

I think part of the problem is to do with those who expect someone to be locked up or given the death penalty, just because they've been charged and not yet been in court. Not only the charged person but, also, society needs that person to have a trial because otherwise, the guilty person could remain free and an innocent one jailed.

The death penalty issue is flawed. There's been several cases where a person has been given 'life' and years later new evidence has proven them not to be guilty. They've been released. That's not possible if they've been executed. No point in imprisoning or executing the wrong person, such that the guilty one continues to walk amongst us.

 

@Jimbee68 - all of your quotes may be of interest. They may even have value. Apart from three or four of those named, each of whom has specialist professional knowledge if the judicial system, I don't know what knowledge or experience of the justice system, the others have.

Better to explain their credentials so we might know the value of those quotes.

 

If someone killed ANYONE in my family--My only job in life thereafter would be to exact revenge to the extreme---so yeah ---and according to your definition----when when little children are raped--slaughtered--I stand by my opinion-----I'M FUCKING WEIRD.!!! So be it.

 

And YES---THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT ABOUT GUILT.

 

But theres the glaring hole in your argument. How many people have been sentenced to death, some executed, and later found to be innocent?!
Guilt on verdict day does not accurately mean guilt. Numerous occasions in USA and UK, where people convicted are later found innocent. How would you bring an innocent person back after they've been executed?

 

Yes, you are correct. If only the legal system could be flawless. Overzealous prosecutors, withholding exculpatory evidence, honing in on a suspect to the exclusion of other possible subjects, etc, etc. More than once have I heard prosecutors state for the record--"I still think we put the right man in jail', even when DNA has conclusively--absolutely proven someone innocent!!

The original poster in the other post argued that the death penalty should be abolished AND life sentences should be abolished. With a person given a life sentence, he / she would have a chance to contact the Innocence Project. Given the death sentence--maybe not. Not sure on that. I'm certainly willing to concede that perhaps there should be no death penalty in case a mistake could be made, but not concede that a life sentence for murder would be wrong. O f course in SOME case when someone is caught red handed, so to speak, engaging in murder--all bets are off.

 

Anyways I wasn't sure where to put this, but I think it should go here. I just found this and it's interesting. Because I thought they were talking about this very subject, below, when I started thinking along those lines, like about 30 years ago as I've said. There was a story on TV in the news about this man who killed his girlfriend in an angry fit because he had a unusually small, underdeveloped prefrontal lobe. He wasn't otherwise mentally ill or suffering from a birth defect they said. As soon as I heard of it it seemed amazing they were thinking along the way I was. But that's called neurocriminology, which is a new field. Biocriminology is the old name of the old field of study. That's interesting. I didn't have the internet back then so I couldn't explore that. I'll have to remember that.

Because I have been sharing my theory for some time, since I got online 25 years ago, and the response I get from scientists is sometimes skeptical. Some saying they don't agree or it doesn't work that way. Maybe due to their own personal biases, I always thought.

AI Overview

Viewing crime as a disease is a metaphor that generally falls under the umbrella of biocriminology or the more specific, emerging field of neurocriminology. These scientific disciplines explore the biological and neurobiological factors that may predispose individuals to problematic, deviant, or criminal behavior, alongside environmental influences.

Scientific Approaches to Crime and Pathology

Biocriminology and neurocriminology focus on the idea that an individual's biology, genetics, and brain conditions (such as tumors, psychoses, or structural abnormalities) can influence their behavior and potential for criminal activity. This contrasts with purely sociological theories that emphasize social and environmental factors.

Psychiatric criminology (forensic psychiatry) examines the role of mental disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), in criminal behavior. It explores how conditions classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) might be linked to offending.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), sometimes called psychopathy or sociopathy, is a formal mental health diagnosis for individuals who consistently disregard right and wrong and ignore the rights and feelings of others. Research shows a high prevalence of ASPD among incarcerated populations.

The "crime as a disease" metaphor is also used in a literal public health context, where some crime prevention programs, like the one led by epidemiologist Gary Slutkin in Chicago, treat violence as a contagious process that can be contained using public health strategies.

Historical Context

The idea of linking crime to physical or mental "disease" is not new. In the 19th century, Italian psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso proposed a theory of biological positivism, suggesting that criminals were "evolutionary throwbacks" with specific physical anomalies. Modern science has since moved past Lombroso's specific physical theories, but the core idea that physiology and brain traits can underlie crime has evolved into contemporary neurocriminology research.

The scientific consensus today recognizes that criminal behavior is complex and results from an interaction between genetic/biological vulnerabilities and environmental factors, not a single "crime gene" or simple "disease".

EDIT: I also remember they interviewed a scientist that was handling his case. And he said he thought he should be released because based on his medical opinion he didn't think he'd murder or do violence again. It just seemed like it was a one-time thing that happened in that one situation

 

That sounds like a very bad idea

 

To add more to what I said (because I wanted to share this, like I said I've thought about this for some time now). Testosterone and certain mental illnesses are not the thing that can lead to crime. Youth can too. That is why the framers of the constitution put the requirement a president be at least 35. I remember this story from the past and recall there was more to it (something about Medieval rulers in Europe being way too young, sometimes barely HS age, and then governing impulsely and with poor judgement). But here is an article I found on that:

The U.S. Constitution's requirement for a president to be at least 35 years old was established by the Founding Fathers at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. This age limit, found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, was intended as a safeguard to ensure the nation's leader possessed certain essential qualities:

Maturity and Sound Judgment: The Framers believed that 35 was a suitable age for an individual to have gained enough life experience and wisdom to handle the immense responsibilities of the executive branch. George Mason argued that younger men's political opinions were often "crude and erroneous".

Establishment of Character: A minimum age ensures that a candidate has had sufficient time in a public role for the electorate to evaluate their reputation, abilities, and principles.

Preventing "Dynastic" Succession: By setting a minimum age of 35, the Framers aimed to make it more difficult for families to place their children in high federal office in a hereditary or dynastic manner, as few fathers would have a son of that age ready to succeed them immediately.

Distrust of Foreign Influence: The age requirement, combined with the 14-year residency rule, was designed to ensure the president was a "natural born citizen" with deep ties to the country, preventing wealthy foreigners from "buying their way" into office.

Historical Context

Comparison to other offices: The presidency has the highest age requirement, followed by the Senate (30) and the House of Representatives (25).

Life Expectancy: While the average life expectancy in the 1700s was roughly 40, this was heavily skewed by high infant mortality; most men who reached adulthood lived into their 60s or 70s, making 35 a "mature" but not elderly age for the time.

Youngest Presidents: No president has ever been inaugurated at the minimum age of 35. The youngest to take office was Theodore Roosevelt (42, after McKinley's assassination) and the youngest elected was John F. Kennedy (43).

Google AI Mode.