NationStates Jolt Archive

Really. From most italian newspapers:

A bunch of inmates of the italian jails, serving life-long terms for small things like mafia terrorism, multiple murders etc have written a letter to the President of the Republic. They claim that life-long sentences are inhumane, and they would rather be put to death.
Among the people sentenced to life-long imprisonment, there are the guys who bombed the Uffizi gallery in Firenze, the mafiosi who killed the two sicilian anti-mafia prosecutors Falcone and Borsellino, all sorts of mafioso leaders like Riina, Brusca, Provenzano, etc, etc.

I, personally, think that this is rubbish.

1.The State should not kill unnecessarily - like they did.
2.After serving the first 26 years, they can ask for liberty on parole.
3.Do they feel bored? Well, then they could ask to work INSIDE the prison.
4.Freeing a mafia killer endangers the whole society.
5.They could have thought about life-long sentences BEFORE they killed a lot of people. Maybe, they thought that they could massacre as many people as they wanted and escape justice.

Screw 'em.

Prison isn't meant to be fun and in the case of life sentences should be used as punishment rather than rehablilitation. Maybe this will make others think twice about getting involved with organised crime.

Screw 'em.

Prison isn't meant to be fun and in the case of life sentences should be used as punishment rather than rehablilitation. Maybe this will make others think twice about getting involved with organised crime.

Exactly. Prison isn't supposed to be a reward.

Well, if they specifically ask for it, they could grant 'em their wish. See how fast they back out, whimpering "no, me was only joking!".

If they asked for death...let 'em have it. I know I'd rather be executed than spend my entire life in jail.

Simple.
Kill the ones that want to live.
Force life on the ones that ask to die.

If they asked for death...let 'em have it. I know I'd rather be executed than spend my entire life in jail.
If you allow these guys to choose their punishment, where do you stop? Once they're found guilty of the crime, they lose their rights.

If you allow these guys to choose their punishment, where do you stop? Once they're found guilty of the crime, they lose their rights.

You give them options, not rights. Prisoners today can choose their mode of execution, their last meal, whether to appeal, whether to donate organs when possible, etc. I don't think it's the same as "rights," though, since it's still prison, and it's still death or LWP.

You give them options, not rights. Prisoners today can choose their mode of execution, their last meal, whether to appeal, whether to donate organs when possible, etc. I don't think it's the same as "rights," though, since it's still prison, and it's still death or LWP.

I disagree, society has already set the punishments for the crimes they committed and they don't get to pick and choose now.

I disagree, society has already set the punishments for the crimes they committed and they don't get to pick and choose now.

It's a more fundamental thing for me I guess - the purpose of prison is punishment, but even more than that, incapacitation. Nothing incapacitates better than death. I say, let them have it, and save the taxpayer some money. Appeals are expensive, but purely voluntary euthanasia makes economic sense. Prisons are terribly crowded here - I don't see the downside in letting a lifer end it.

It's a more fundamental thing for me I guess - the purpose of prison is punishment, but even more than that, incapacitation. Nothing incapacitates better than death. I say, let them have it, and save the taxpayer some money. Appeals are expensive, but purely voluntary euthanasia makes economic sense. Prisons are terribly crowded here - I don't see the downside in letting a lifer end it.

So let them hang themselves in their cell. No need for the government to dirty their hands.

So let them hang themselves in their cell. No need for the government to dirty their hands.

Sounds practical, but the warden loses his job when that happens too much. When the inmate signs a release form stating his will to die, it's nice and square. More realistic, I think.

If they asked for death...let 'em have it. I know I'd rather be executed than spend my entire life in jail.

Depending on the severity of your crime, I see no reason why your request should be entertained. In fact, continued life support in a tiny cell with restraints might be even better.

Sometimes it's crueler to force people to live than to kill them. And for people who can't withstand lifetime imprisonment yet have done something to merit it, why, keep them around as long as possible.

Preferably in a sensory deprivation.

Well, if they specifically ask for it, they could grant 'em their wish. See how fast they back out, whimpering "no, me was only joking!".

I gave another thought about this:

I think that life is a right of humans, so the State should not kill anyone if not strictly necessary.
I also think that suicide is a right of humans. So, if they want to die, they should be given poison and medical assistance to lessen the suffering of poisoning. It must be clear, though, that this is their own personal choice.

Anyway, fuck mafia!

Sounds practical, but the warden loses his job when that happens too much. When the inmate signs a release form stating his will to die, it's nice and square. More realistic, I think.

Hey, this is Italy. No employee of the State loses his job. We even have trouble firing state-employees who have been caught stealing at their own workplace!
;)

Hey, this is Italy. No employee of the State loses his job. We even have trouble firing state-employees who have been caught stealing at their own workplace!
;)

Ah, that's a bit different then perhaps. :p

It's funny, that for all the people we execute in prisons in the U.S., the number of prison suicides in France was greater for many years, and might still be! That's another way of weeding out undesirables, and maybe more effective even. :p

If they asked for death...let 'em have it. I know I'd rather be executed than spend my entire life in jail.

One of the many excellent reasons why the death penalty should be outlawed. Why allow them to have the easy way out?

One of the many excellent reasons why the death penalty should be outlawed. Why allow them to have the easy way out?

What good are they to us alive? I can't think of much use for them. Life in a concrete box is basically delayed death anyway.

What good are they to us alive? I can't think of much use for them. Life in a concrete box is basically delayed death anyway.

What 'good' is anyone to us alive? We'd solve a lot of the world's problems if we just knocked off a few people. It's not in any way an argument for state sanctioned murder.

What 'good' is anyone to us alive? We'd solve a lot of the world's problems if we just knocked off a few people. It's not in any way an argument for state sanctioned murder.

I like to think that *some* people are good. :p

In any case, the difference between life without parole and death is almost nothing in practice, but it's amazing how the threat of death gets some inmates to admit to their crimes, give up details, etc. There's a use for it.

In any case, the difference between life without parole and death is almost nothing in practice, but it's amazing how the threat of death gets some inmates to admit to their crimes, give up details, etc. There's a use for it.

You can't threaten people with death unless you're actually prepared to carry out that threat. Such a threat, used with the intention of extracting information, could also be considered a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

You can't threaten people with death unless you're actually prepared to carry out that threat. Such a threat, used with the intention of extracting information, could also be considered a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

True enough, and that's something for the Italians to work out. Most states with the death penalty enforce it here, and the ones that have the death penalty but don't execute at least threaten you with life on death row, which is sometimes worse than either death or life without parole among the general population. So the threat is usually effective.

So the threat is usually effective.

So is a rusty nail to the genitals, but it doesn't make it right.

So is a rusty nail to the genitals, but it doesn't make it right.

Well, it's better in that it's legal. All prison is psychological torture in some way, no matter how you set it up. If hanging a death sentence over someone's head forces them to plea out and give up his accomplices, it saves lives and money.

Well, it's better in that it's legal. All prison is psychological torture in some way, no matter how you set it up. If hanging a death sentence over someone's head forces them to plea out and give up his accomplices, it saves lives and money.

Unless they do what is always the problem when it comes to torture - just say whatever they think you want them to say, in order to make you stop. Confessions obtained in such a way are completely unreliable.

Unless they do what is always the problem when it comes to torture - just say whatever they think you want them to say, in order to make you stop. Confessions obtained in such a way are completely unreliable.

That's always a problem, but the FBI is pretty good about requiring material evidence and so on. Some serial killers have confessed to thousands of killings, for example, when the total count was in the low hundreds. But it does get sorted out in most cases, and some files are closed.

In any case, the difference between life without parole and death ...

Life-long sentences in Italy include the possibility of liberty on parole (or with some other limitations, like home arrest) after serving 26 years, anyway.

Unless they do what is always the problem when it comes to torture - just say whatever they think you want them to say, in order to make you stop. Confessions obtained in such a way are completely unreliable.

That's why torture is stupid, and not just cruel. It is needless cruelty.

That's why torture is stupid, and not just cruel. It is needless cruelty.

I don't disagree, for the record. :p The death penalty, besides being just in many cases, is an excellent bargaining chip, that's all.

Life-long sentences in Italy include the possibility of liberty on parole (or with some other limitations, like home arrest) after serving 26 years, anyway.

Ah, didn't know that. Hopefully the worst criminals are denied even after the 26.

Ah, didn't know that. Hopefully the worst criminals are denied even after the 26.

They have to pass a sort of "exam", where the judges must evaluate whether the inmate still is a threat to society or not anymore.
That is, even the worst criminals are given a chance of redeeming. Our Constitution states that the purpose of imprisonment is reeducation and rehabilitation, not punishment.

One of the many excellent reasons why the death penalty should be outlawed. Why allow them to have the easy way out?

Life imprisonment does seem cruel to me. I'd prefer execution. Even if I were innocent, but had no realistic chance of successfully appealing.

(Aside: I find it amusing that some people - pointing at nobody - argue against the death penalty for being cruel, then say a convicted criminal should serve life inprisonment even if they'd prefer the death penalty, because it's crueller.)

(Aside: I find it amusing that some people - pointing at nobody - argue against the death penalty for being cruel, then say a convicted criminal should serve life inprisonment even if they'd prefer the death penalty, because it's crueller.)

It's not about cruelty at all - it's about taking the easy way out. Executing someone means they never have to think about what they did or live with the consequences of their actions.

It's not about cruelty at all - it's about taking the easy way out. Executing someone means they never have to think about what they did or live with the consequences of their actions.

Why does that matter if they're dead? Their thinking about it and regretting it has no effect on anyone else but themselves.

It's not about cruelty at all - it's about taking the easy way out. Executing someone means they never have to think about what they did or live with the consequences of their actions.

But why think they care?
They probably deeply regret getting caught, but they might actually think their actions were perfectly justified.

Why does that matter if they're dead? Their thinking about it and regretting it has no effect on anyone else but themselves.
If the aim of justice is to punish, then what they think is very relevant.

But why think they care?
They probably deeply regret getting caught, but they might actually think their actions were perfectly justified.
Maybe so, and executing them will mean they will go to their grave thinking they were right. Like I say, I think that's the easy way out.

I believe that was my point.



But why should anyone care if they think about it and regret it. If the choices are between a lifetime in prison or death society benefits either way. Their regret or suffering doesn't have any effect on us

I assume your point is against the death penalty. If i'm getting that wrong I apologise

Their regret or suffering doesn't have any effect on us

Their suffering is certainly something that we should have nothing to do with. Their regret and remorse, however, is something that is very relevant. I believe locking someone up is simply getting them out of the way - only if they are truly remorseful, and accept that they have done wrong, will justice be properly served.

Their suffering is certainly something that we should have nothing to do with. Their regret and remorse, however, is something that is very relevant. I believe locking someone up is simply getting them out of the way - only if they are truly remorseful, and accept that they have done wrong, will justice be properly served.

And should they be set free when judged to have shown remorse?

How do you judge that?

And if a life sentence is truly a lifetime what difference does it truly make to anyone

And should they be set free when judged to have shown remorse?

How do you judge that?

And if a life sentence is truly a lifetime what difference does it truly make to anyone

There is always a minimum sentence that must be served in order to satisfy society's desire for retribution. Once that has been served, then if they are genuinely remorseful they can be considered for release - there is no point continuing to lock up someone who is no danger and has served their sentence.

Life very rarely means life in jail, incidentally.

There is always a minimum sentence that must be served in order to satisfy society's desire for retribution. Once that has been served, then if they are genuinely remorseful they can be considered for release - there is no point continuing to lock up someone who is no danger and has served their sentence.

Life very rarely means life in jail, incidentally.

Yeah i understand the meaning of a life sentence but you didn't answer my question of how to judge remorsefulness.

Yeah i understand the meaning of a life sentence but you didn't answer my question of how to judge remorsefulness.

Well, how long is a piece of string?

If prison is a worse punishment for them than death, why would I want to have mercy on these scumbags by granting them a lighter sentence?

This is exactly why I support life sentences over the death penalty. Not only does it allow for the accused to be proven innocent if any new evidence surfaces, but it is also a worse punishment for them. Death is too good for murderers etc.

Life imprisonment does seem cruel to me. I'd prefer execution. Even if I were innocent, but had no realistic chance of successfully appealing.

(Aside: I find it amusing that some people - pointing at nobody - argue against the death penalty for being cruel, then say a convicted criminal should serve life inprisonment even if they'd prefer the death penalty, because it's crueller.)

*agrees*

One can't use both arguments. Although, I don't think the second one makes much sense anyway, since in that situation they should have no problem with having the death penalty as one step below life.

I always said that the death penalty is the coward's way out.

No. Regardless of what they want, we shouldn't open up for the death penalty.