Posted on 02/29/2016 11:26:05 AM PST by Academiadotorg
Perhaps law professors should confine themselves to explaining the law to their students and showing how it works based upon the best evidence available. "The American legal professoriate has tirelessly pursued an expose' of American sentencing policy as unjustly harsh," George Mason University Law School professor Craig Lerner wrote last year in an article which appeared in the Wisconsin Law Review. "If Exhibit A in this critique is the persistence of the death penalty on American soil, Exhibit B has become the prevalence of LWOP [life without parole] sentences—and not simply the prevalence, but the haphazard and irrational nature with which the penalty is imposed."
"LWOP, the argument runs, is dispensed without careful attention to either the nature of the crime or the culpability of the criminal."
Lerner undertook to investigate these claims in his article, and found them wanting. "Who's really sentenced to life without parole?" he asked. "The answer, at least in the eight states studied in this Article, is overwhelmingly murderers and other violent criminals."
Indeed, he found that:
• In Wisconsin, of 229 inmates serving life without parole, 192 were convicted of murder;
• In Iowa, of 649 inmates serving life without parole, 507 were convicted of murder, another 13 of murder and kidnapping, and yet another five of murder and sex crimes;
• In the state of Washington, out of 626 inmates serving life without parole, 335 were convicted of murder;
• In Arkansas, all 593 of the inmates serving life without parole were convicted of murder;
• In Georgia, 599 of the 943 inmates serving life without parole were convicted of murder;
• In South Carolina, of the 988 inmates serving life without parole, 693 were convicted of murder;
• In Alabama, of the 1,493 inmates serving life without parole, 936 were convicted of murder; and
• In Florida, of the 7,351 inmates serving life without parole, 3,513 were convicted of murder and another 416 of attempted murder.
Absolutely, do away with LWOP for murder.
Execute the SOBs. Stat.
They do not teach or educate. They advocate liberal causes and organize communties for their interests.
off them in the manner that they murdered the victim...
and televise it.
sweet.
Although I’m not sure what the point is here, I can certainly say there is much room for improvement in law schools, and I can also say that the current status of our states’ penal code is desperately wanting and evidences a dark-ages view of indifference and neglect towards convicted criminals.
What sort of charges outside of murder do you have to be convicted of to get LWOP??
Don’t agree with your sentiment. I don’t think an eye for an eye is the way our country should be run.
I have no problem with commuting a sentence of LWOP to a lengthy term of home detention...
...to be served in the home of a liberal law school professor. Don’t be a hypocrite, prof. Let them into your home if you really believe what you say.
Some states have LWOP for repeat serious violent felons. It’s a “three strikes” law, but all offenses have to be crimes of violence.
We need to use the death penalty a lot more than we do.
... and hard labor....
Incorrect analogy. Life for life would be correct, and appropriate. That is, unless you do not believe in punishing the guilty? If an innocent life is taken maliciously, the only correct punishment is that the life of the perpetrator be taken. Not vengeance, justice. This raises the value life of the victim to its appropriate place in society.
Eye for an eye was an expression.
How does killing another human raise the value of life of the victim? And why is their life worth more?
I’m certainly for punishment but my opinion is there’s far too many of these ridiculous sentences thrown around. More should be done to rehabilitate life, not destroy it.
the problem is not values but that the criminal survives
if gone, he is no longer a problem
I can certainly agree with that. There’s certainly a part of me that feels angry we pay for some murdering scum to live out his life in jail. If he’s never going to get out, then end it.
On the other hand I don’t believe it’s right to take a life for a life. Does not bring the murdered back.
life for life is not the guiding principle
getting rid of the scumbag for ever is reason enough
That may not be the guiding principle, but it is the end result.
An expression from Mosaic law that extends to the ultimate "Life for Life".
How does killing another human raise the value of life of the victim?
Were the punishment anything less, the victim's life is reduced in value to that level of punishment. Society must hold the life on an individual, guilty of no crime, to be the pinnacle of society. Anything less and we become little more than drones to the collective and without value.
And why is their life worth more?
The victim was innocent. The perpetrator did the one thing that is universally reprehensible and condemned by all cultures. The murderer has proven themselves to be outside of the decency of civilization and worthy of contempt and the ultimate punishment, that of their lives. This reduces the value of the murderers life to less than that of the innocent victim.
I’m certainly for punishment but my opinion is there’s far too many of these ridiculous sentences thrown around. More should be done to rehabilitate life, not destroy it.
You believe capital punishment is thrown around, and too often? I full well believe it to be handed out rather sparingly and the sentence carried out even more so.
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m wondering where this is proven true in history - where a life taken for a life taken raises the intrinsic value of human life.
I’m all for reading up on history, and going through the bible right now.
Are we all born sinners?
Are we all of equal value when we are born?
Consider the killing fields of Cambodia. Life meant little to nothing to the murderous Khmer Rouge, specifically because there were no consequences to their genocide. Same with the Turks and the Armenian genocide. The life of an Armenian had no value to the Turks. The Chinese during the rape of Nanking. The Tutsis in Rwanda by the Hutus. The Jews to the Nazis, the Ukranians to Stalin, the list goes on and on:
All of these are where one group devalues the life of another. Once a life is considered equal value to another, consequences must be harsh when an innocent life is maliciously taken. Our current societies place life of such a high value that the punishment is the loss of the murderers life, at least that is how it is to work philosophically, Democrat policies not withstanding.
I’m all for reading up on history, and going through the bible right now.
Excellent. However, translate the Old Testament in light and revelation of the New Testament. The OT is a story of God leading His people and restoring them after their numerous rebellions. The NT is God opening Himself to we Gentiles and providing the only bridge across an impossible divide.
Are we all born sinners?
Are we all of equal value when we are born?
To God, yes. To man, no. Modern man does not want to believe in sin or consequences for actions. Hence the push for atheism. If there is no god, then everything is permissible since there are no eternal consequences. God is just, but more so, He is full of Grace.
Thanks. Yes I’ve studied a bit about Nazi Germany and how they (and the others you mentioned) devalued/dehumanized their enemies making the killing of them guilt free.
I agree with this: If there is no god, then everything is permissible since there are no eternal consequences.
Or as I see it moral relativism is an oxymoron. To say that something is or is not moral based on man’s law is incorrect.
So the big question - it is not immoral to put someone to death for murdering someone else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.