Do you think a life sentace should mean just that..life?

Answer 1

Yes ,absolutely. The current system makes a mockery of the law as it stands.If a person is convicted of a crime and given a life sentence,then they should be put away for exactly that , LIFE.

Answer 2

This is an interesting question.

When a life sentence is issued then it's never normally completed since the judges say that they can only apply for release after a certain time, normally half way through the sentence.

It might be seen as unfair to actually put someone away properly for life unless they've committed such a serious crime that they don't deserve freedom.

It should be changed to a way that judge give a certain sentence instead of life but this sentence should be the same amount of time that they get with life.

As I said, life sentences should be 'reserved' for the most serious of crimes.

I get the feeling that they changed it to call it a life sentence to give the impression that they have taken the strongest possible action against the criminal which we know is not true since they get out after a while.

Maybe it could also be changed to a method where-by when any life sentence is issued, the offender has to stay in prison during that sentence until a certain age. Maybe keep them in prison until their old age.

Answer 3

As a correctional officer in MN I can tell you that a life sentence means one will serve at least 30 years. But in answer to your question I would have to say no (90% of the time). Most of the lifers that I deal with are murderers and I would have no problem if some of them did reside next to me and my family. Most murders are spontaneous acts. Of course, one has the psychopaths, serial killers, and the like; but most are a one time offense. I could tell stories...one guy serving a life sentence for killing a guy who molested his niece, another one for killing his stepfather who was beating his mother. Do I think these guys are a "threat" to society? No. Do they need to be incarcerated? Yes. However, I think 30 years is plenty. Any more is a waste to tax money, any less and we would be living in the old west again. What needs to be changed is mandatory sentences. Judges/Juries need to look at the circumstances of each case and weigh the punishment accordingly. The use of mandatory "cookie cutter" sentencing is a farce.

Of course my opinion towards sex offenders and life sentences (or the lack thereof) is totally different and a topic for another time.

Answer 4

I could'nt agree more, a life sentence, means 25 years, now it depends what kinda case it is, for example if a man comes in, finds his wife in bed with his best mate and kills him or his wife, and his put away but is sorry and shows signs of remorse then consider his parole. On the other hand if a fella comes home from a shitty day, goes to the garage, picks up an axe and bludgeons his wife and two kids, then shows no remorse, should he ever be allowed to come out, every case is different and has to be treat according to its circumstances, life should be life, if not call the sentence something else. Has to be well serious though to send someone to prison, for 25 years, I'd bring lethal injection in, if your not evil or a nutcase, then you have no fear of being injected, who wants to rot in prison for 25 years, the convicts should be given the option, 25 years or lethal injection, either way, there being severley punished....

Answer 5

If the person is elderly and has changed and has served many, many years, and is no longer a danger, and has convinced the parole board of all this, and it is legal in his state, why should we pay for their very expensive healthcare and other expenses of incarcerating an elderly person? It is VERY expensive to incarcerate the elderly.

If they have convinced a parole board that they are no longer a danger, and there is no objection by the victims, and it is legal in their state and the prisons are overcrowded, then they should boot him out and make room for more dangerious people.


If money and resourses were unlimited, however, (don't know what state that exists in), then they should be locked away for life like their sentence calls for. But unfortunately, all you people who think that the prisons should be full of elderly drug dealers if you get what you want, your taxes will go WAY up.

Answer 6

In most states, when these laws were made for "life sentances" they were made back when people did NOT live as long as they do now.......
Inmates/convits did not live long in prison at all
Now a days, inmates/convits have better medical attention then most people on the street do, better dental, better food.......
they get 3 squares a day, medication that most people on the street dont.......so needless to say, they are living longer....
in most states, a life sentance could be 20-25 years.......and because of the liberals, and inmate lawsuits, that is most likely not to change.......because now it seems they have rights.....more then you do....
most states actually figure it cost over 30,000$ a year to keep an average healthy inmate in prison. If that inmate has medical problems, the cost goes up even more........
sad that it cost more to keep an inmate in prison then the staff that works at that prison make.......!!!!!!!!!!
In my eye, it should mean their natural life....
but i also think death row is not used enough
if it was used more, maybe certain crimes would go down.

Answer 7

only if when he gets out he wants to live next door to me. other than that you should let him out when he says sorry.

I'm sitting in a small room at my computer and if I had to live in here for 25 years I think i would die.

Now if I had to share the room with murderers and convicts then I think I would well, em die.

lol

A life sentace as you call it, can never mean life.

How can the prison authorities get a person to behave if they can't dangle freedom infront of them.

Answer 8

Remember that in the UK, "mercy killing" of terminally ill relatives is counted as murder. These people still get a life sentence but are ususally released after 4-5 years ... It's like someone said earlier, every case should be dealt with on its merits. They should get rid of the fixed life sentence for every case of murder. Every case is different.

And if judges and courts are so "soft", why are there twice as many people in British prisons as there were 10 years ago? This is costing taxpayers billions.

Answer 9

depends why they are receiving a prison sentence. if it's for murder which wasnt in self defence and they are a threat to the public, and receive a life sentence, then it should be for the rest of their life, while they could still be others harm. often people are let out of prison after 5 years when they received a 10 year sentence, only to hurt someone again. do you really want to give someone the benefit of the doubt and be responsible for them doing it again. when they can be safely incarcerated to protect others.

for some people, **** happens, and there were special circumstances which may have led to it, the courts take past actions into consideration when they give a sentence.

Answer 10

Yes it should. If the crime warrants being locked away for life so be it. Depends how the judge does it. If he says life they can request parol in say 6 years. If he says a minimum of life, then a life sentence has to be served.

Eye for an eye I say.

The law is an *** and is no deterrant.