Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,346
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Provided you can be absolutely certain that the one desiring parole is not fooling everyone and just biding their time until being released.Why?But it really truly needs to be without even the possibility of parole.
Sure. But how can you know who those people are, at the time of sentencing?Some people cannot be rehabilitated, and it's reckless endangerment to release them.
Surely it makes more sense to repeatedly assess their suitability for release, and to parole them if (and only if) they display such suitability?
As you correctly note futher down
Nobody is able to justly make such a claim
And yet we can point to circumstances where some were released who were manifestly unfit to be so treated. This is by the those who supposedly had the qualifications to make judgement.To deny in advance the possibility of parole is as (literally) prejudicial as to impose a mandatory sentence in legislation. It removes, from those qualified to make a judgement on a specific individual case, the right to exercise that judgement, and passes that right to some legislative body that cannot possibly have access to the facts, or to a court that cannot possibly know a given prisoner's future.
Qualifications only mean you went to school longer, not that you know what you are doing or cannot be fooled.
And yet we need to prepare for the future. Easy to claim you are rehabilitated. I prefer proof rather than claims. That is the appropriate sceptical response.To say "This person is currently a danger to society" may be reasonable, but to add "and always will remain so, until death" is not. It is a claim about a distant future. Nobody is able to justly make such claims.