Well an arguement could be made that he’s not going to do it again.
Think about the distinction between a contract killer and somebody who committed a crime of passion. Are both of those people equally likely to reoffend?
If the objective is to either reform someone or simply remove a threat from society then both cases require different approaches.
An argument could be made, sure, but I don’t think it would be effective. If a person has the capacity to willingly murder their family members over an issue of eviction, then I don’t know how much capacity for reform they have. They pose an imminent and ongoing danger to anyone near them; an unacceptable level of risk in a tolerant society.
Beyond that concept, there’s very little (if any) benefit to society to reforming and releasing this man. Any work that would need to be done to ensure this man could never kill again would take a considerable amount of time. He’s already 66 - let’s say it only takes four years (somehow), then he’ll be released when he’s 70. He already has health complications which likely put his life expectancy well below average, meaning his death is probably impending in the next decade - probably sooner based on substandard penal medical care.
Trying to reform this man is like trying to keep a 21 year old dog alive - sure you can do it, and you’ll probably feel better about yourself if you do, but there’s no real benefit to the dog or society at large. He should have just been handed life without parole instead of 100 years - that seems like a sentence that could be appealed due to the silly nature of how long it is.
Just want to point out that in Canada the stats are extremely clear, murderers are the convicts that are the least likely to commit the same crime that got them convicted again if they get released. Obviously there’s a panel to decide if they’re ready to come out and some of them never will, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given the tools to reform themselves.
I’ve never thought anything over 10 years was appropriate to a once-in-a-lifetime type of crime of passion. It’s enough time for a decent remediation process to prevent a repeat offense OR prove a certainty that the person cannot be trusted free due to mental issues and put them in a permanent non-punitive form of imprisonment.
In his case, if he didn’t have access to firearms, he wouldn’t be able to kill anyone. Sounds like he needs specialized assisted living, like the old guy who held himself hostage with a shotgun the next town over from me
Nobody can mistake that the 100 years isn’t for the good of society, but to punish him for taking a life.
There are cases to reform somebody, and I fully agree that we must try that. In some cases. Which this is absolutely not.
Well an arguement could be made that he’s not going to do it again.
Think about the distinction between a contract killer and somebody who committed a crime of passion. Are both of those people equally likely to reoffend?
If the objective is to either reform someone or simply remove a threat from society then both cases require different approaches.
An argument could be made, sure, but I don’t think it would be effective. If a person has the capacity to willingly murder their family members over an issue of eviction, then I don’t know how much capacity for reform they have. They pose an imminent and ongoing danger to anyone near them; an unacceptable level of risk in a tolerant society.
Beyond that concept, there’s very little (if any) benefit to society to reforming and releasing this man. Any work that would need to be done to ensure this man could never kill again would take a considerable amount of time. He’s already 66 - let’s say it only takes four years (somehow), then he’ll be released when he’s 70. He already has health complications which likely put his life expectancy well below average, meaning his death is probably impending in the next decade - probably sooner based on substandard penal medical care.
Trying to reform this man is like trying to keep a 21 year old dog alive - sure you can do it, and you’ll probably feel better about yourself if you do, but there’s no real benefit to the dog or society at large. He should have just been handed life without parole instead of 100 years - that seems like a sentence that could be appealed due to the silly nature of how long it is.
Just want to point out that in Canada the stats are extremely clear, murderers are the convicts that are the least likely to commit the same crime that got them convicted again if they get released. Obviously there’s a panel to decide if they’re ready to come out and some of them never will, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given the tools to reform themselves.
I’ve never thought anything over 10 years was appropriate to a once-in-a-lifetime type of crime of passion. It’s enough time for a decent remediation process to prevent a repeat offense OR prove a certainty that the person cannot be trusted free due to mental issues and put them in a permanent non-punitive form of imprisonment.
In his case, if he didn’t have access to firearms, he wouldn’t be able to kill anyone. Sounds like he needs specialized assisted living, like the old guy who held himself hostage with a shotgun the next town over from me
Nobody can mistake that the 100 years isn’t for the good of society, but to punish him for taking a life.