Hold the Mayo

October 01, 2005

More Evidence The Left Just Doesn't Get It

This is the headline from a New York Times article

To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars

Corrfect me if I'm wrong, but isn't that sort of the point.

The Times seems to deplore this development

Just a few decades ago, a life sentence was often a misnomer, a way to suggest harsh punishment but deliver only 10 to 20 years.

But now, driven by tougher laws and political pressure on governors and parole boards, thousands of lifers are going into prisons each year, and in many states only a few are ever coming out, even in cases where judges and prosecutors did not intend to put them away forever.

Indeed, in just the last 30 years, the United States has created something never before seen in its history and unheard of around the globe: a booming population of prisoners whose only way out of prison is likely to be inside a coffin.

Ironically, they seem to understand that the left, ie the Times, may bear some of the responsibilty.

The phenomenon is in some ways an artifact of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment have promoted life sentences as an alternative to execution. And as the nation's enthusiasm for the death penalty wanes amid restrictive Supreme Court rulings and a spate of death row exonerations, more states are turning to life sentences.

Defendants facing a potential death sentence often plead to life; those who go to trial and are convicted are sentenced to life about half the time by juries that are sometimes swayed by the lingering possibility of innocence.

As a result the United States is now housing a large and permanent population of prisoners who will die of old age behind bars. At the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, for instance, more than 3,000 of the 5,100 prisoners are serving life without parole, and most of the rest are serving sentences so long that they cannot be completed in a typical lifetime.

I imagine it must come as a shock that the result of a life sentence means a convicted criminal staying in prison for the rest of their life, but as the old saying goes, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 12:36 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment

1 You are a complete idiot. Why don't you read the article and then present some educated views on whether many of the people discussed really ought to die in prison. What is your problem? Why are so many conservatives essentially statists? I guess all non-conservatives "don't get it" because they dare talk about whether all these life without parole sentences make sense.

Posted by: Mike at October 01, 2005 04:18 PM (+F6ie)

2 I did read the whole article, even the part about how many people accept a life without parole sentence instead of facing the death penalty. I also understand that prison is punishment. and just because a convict learns a trade and becomes a nice guy, doesn't mean he has been punished enough.

Yes, life without parole makes sense, particularly when the death penalty is not available.

And here's a little tip for you, Mike. Calling someone a complete idiot is not really a good way to start a productive dialog.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 02, 2005 01:39 PM (ics4u)

3 The left - and Mike is prime example - doesn't think anyone should be held accountable for their actions. It isn't their fault their in prison for life w/o parole. They had a bad childhood (your childhood may not have been perfect, but it's over; grow up!) they had a bad education (Ben Franklin had basically the education he provided for himself), they ate junk food, .....

And yes, it is punishment, and yes punishment should go on a long time in some cases.

Now there are probably sentencing laws that should be revised, but since we instituted 3-strikes, and mandatory minimum sentences, and made it easier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves violent crime has gone down is now at or near 30 year lows. While in the UK where some crimes will never earn a jail sentence - burglary say - crime is out of control.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at October 02, 2005 03:05 PM (S417T)

4 The point is what is best for your society. Neither policy (killing people or locking them up) has worked yet in America.
What works to reduce crime?
There is an arguement that locking up fathers increases crime.
There is an arguement that increasing abortion reduces crime.
There is an arguement that a lower availability of weapons which kill easily at a distance make murder less likely.
If you wish to make a moral judgement, make it.
Your right is protected by your law.
Of course, before you pour yourself into global print, you will remember yourself.
You are the kind of human that puts yourself in the shoes of the people you write about before rushing to your keyboard.
And so, you will never make ill-thought out knee jerk responses to things you have read elsewhere.
Good wishes
Simon

Posted by: simonf at October 28, 2005 02:35 PM (YLLfk)

5 Simon,

Your argument unfortunately falls appart in the first sentence as crime nationally is well down over the last decade.

Locking people up may or may not be a detterent, but people in prison are not a threat to commiot more crime in society.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 28, 2005 04:00 PM (ics4u)

Hide Comments | Add Comment