https://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/05/07/0507parole.html?imw=Y
2007-05-08 03:01:39 · 13 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
A better question is 'Why should a triple murderer be aloud to continue to breath our air?'
2007-05-08 03:07:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Triple murderer? Paroled? No, why should that person have a life when three people have lost theirs? The murderer should have to pay and suffer for the rest of his/her lives. Of course, you must look at the circumstances surrounding the murder. But in most cases, NO! Make them work in jail and give back to society in some way. But do not allow them out to enjoy a life they took from three others.
2007-05-08 10:11:31 · answer #2 · answered by Toronto girl 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a general question, I don't really think so because: a) the offender would probably still pose a threat to society upon release, and b) it is quite improbable that the offender would be able to get a job to support him/herself due to the nature of the offense, and therefore (s)he would not be able to be a productive/contributing member of society. That said, if an offender cannot find legitimate work once released, that person usually becomes involved in illegal activities again in order to support him/herself.
2007-05-08 10:07:28 · answer #3 · answered by Celestia X 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends. (Don't click on links here as they open in this same window instead of a new one so I can compare the question with what's in the link.)
Killing numerous people simultaneously in some incident should be considered as a grave matter completely separately from killing numerous people at separate times even when during one prolonged incident.
The former might not be repeated, the latter more likely will.
Life imprisonment should be reserved for those who are considered to ALWAYS BE a danger to society.
2007-05-08 10:08:09 · answer #4 · answered by Ben 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1969 was a very odd time, drugs was prevelant, teenagers were very violent and nuts (ie Kent state) and thought they were immortal.
The guy was 16 it was near 40 years ago, one wonders are we ever the same person after that much life time. I certainly am not. It's really not my call and think of it this way people that get released after that many years are pretty much broken. He will probably steal something within 6 months of parole and be back in the slammer its the only way of life he ever has known.
2007-05-08 10:09:04 · answer #5 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The first thing about this to notice that when the fellow did his triple murder, he was under 18.
People!!! Pay ******* attention in class, or get the **** out.
2007-05-08 10:11:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The laws were different back then...if he served his time then the law allows him to be released.
If the same crime had been committed, he may not even be eligible.
2007-05-08 10:12:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion - and here in America we are entitled to one - is NO. Absolutely not.
I mean, especially THIS guy - he was given a chance and proved even then he couldn't follow simple rules.
2007-05-08 10:05:04 · answer #8 · answered by Marvelissa 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Bush and Cheney should be tried for crimes against humanity as they're responsible for much more than three deaths.
2007-05-08 10:06:49 · answer #9 · answered by Silent Kninja 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think a murderer should receive what they did. Hey, they can dish it out, they should be able to take it.
2007-05-08 10:08:19 · answer #10 · answered by Snaglefritz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋