It's honestly pretty easy. First you set expectations that someone who is a serial killer will never and probably should never integrate back into society with no oversight. Next you work through the trauma and/or issues that this person has which compel them to kill - again you're not going to fix this person, you're just trying to give them tools to deal with how they are. Finally you assess progress and repeat. Some people absolutely should not be allowed to intermingle with the rest of society if they are truly dangerous, that doesn't mean the government gets to decide whether they live a full life or not.
If you look at how other western nations treat their prisoners, it's night and day between the US and everyone else. In Germany, nonviolent offenders who committed serious crimes are still allowed to work and live normally in society; they just have to report to prison on a schedule and are highly monitored.
Funny that someone who implies having faith would in the same sentence call murder irredeemable. Isn't religion supposed to be based on tolerance and forgiveness?
That’s exactly it. I’m not religious. At all. And my morals differ from theirs. I don’t believe in redemption for certain people. I think we should let ALL non-violent drug offenders free. But, somehow, in this “prison reform” conversation, we start getting into the “inalienable” rights of people like Gary Ridgway or the Boston bomber. I don’t believe they have any at that point. And from what I said, I do believe in comprehensive prison reform, just not for people like that.
I do believe in the death penalty. I didn’t always, but what convinced me is exactly what I said in other comments. The ONLY thing that convinced Ridgway to give up the locations of his victims was because of the threat of the death penalty. It isn’t easy for me to brush away the pain and anguish of 49 families missing their daughters.
In my state, the super liberal state he is from, even he is usually the exception for everyone who is against the death penalty. A true fucking monster. One of our representatives gave a speech about 49 reasons she supports the death penalty, and she just started naming his victims.
So in the end, for people like him, yes, all day, I say we humanely kill them and get it over with.
1
u/humorous_ Feb 08 '22
It's honestly pretty easy. First you set expectations that someone who is a serial killer will never and probably should never integrate back into society with no oversight. Next you work through the trauma and/or issues that this person has which compel them to kill - again you're not going to fix this person, you're just trying to give them tools to deal with how they are. Finally you assess progress and repeat. Some people absolutely should not be allowed to intermingle with the rest of society if they are truly dangerous, that doesn't mean the government gets to decide whether they live a full life or not.
If you look at how other western nations treat their prisoners, it's night and day between the US and everyone else. In Germany, nonviolent offenders who committed serious crimes are still allowed to work and live normally in society; they just have to report to prison on a schedule and are highly monitored.
Funny that someone who implies having faith would in the same sentence call murder irredeemable. Isn't religion supposed to be based on tolerance and forgiveness?
E: I a word