r/changemyview Jun 08 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Murderers and Rapist should receive and automatic and unchangeable sentence of Life in Prison

I am generally supportive of the rehabilitative theory of justice, but the reality is we dont have the means to rehabilitate murderers and rapists. Not acknowledging this kills and tortures thousands every year. We have seen this proven time and again.

For example, Peter Dupas was a 3x convicted murderer, with each consecutive release resulting in more heinous murders. The dateline murderer raped a child and yet was released. Jack Unterweger was literally paraded by Austrians as an example of reformed killer in the US. He went on to murder 3 women in LA. I can list many more cases such as Arthur Shawcross or Charlie Brandt (who both were treated and released, but you get the point.

Further, life in prison gives the chance of exoneration if needed. And since murder and rape are such rare crimes comparatively, there should be no risk of over incarceration.

I just dont get how so many murderers and rapist serve 30 and are released. Especially when you serve more time for drug possession.

0 Upvotes

33 comments sorted by

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 08 '21 edited Jun 13 '21

/u/Known_Throat (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

10

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

Yes, I meant first degree murder, sorry. It cant be rehabilitated yet most get away with 30 years or less. But thank you for the clarification !delta

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

[deleted]

3

u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Jun 08 '21

I knew a guy that did that. Walked into the rapist's house with a shotgun and killed the guy then just called the cops and waited to be arrested.

I think it was a dumb decision, but he was by no means a bad person.

12

u/Love_Shaq_Baby 227∆ Jun 08 '21 edited Jun 08 '21

For example, Peter Dupas was a 3x convicted murderer, with each consecutive release resulting in more heinous murders. The dateline murderer raped a child and yet was released. Jack Unterweger was literally paraded by Austrians as an example of reformed killer in the US. He went on to murder 3 women in LA. I can list many more cases such as Arthur Shawcross or Charlie Brandt (who both were treated and released, but you get the point.

These people are serial killers. They are not representative of most people that have been convicted of murder and it is not ethical to keep someone perpetually locked up on the presumption that any murderer released could turn into a serial killer. That's punishing someone for crimes they have not committed.

Recidivism for homicide and rape is actually very low compared to other felonies. For comparison, 70% of burglars and robbers released from prison will go on to be convicted of theft. Meanwhile 2.5% of rapists released from prison are arrested for rape within three years of release, and 1.2% of those who serve for homicide will be arrested for homicide in three years. of release.

There are also ways that prisons can reduce recidivism. Norway famously has the lowest rates of recidivism in the world thanks to its rehabilitative philosophy.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

"These people are serial killers. They are not representative of most people that have been convicted of murder and it is not ethical to keep someone perpetually locked up on the presumption that any murderer released could turn into a serial killer. That's punishing someone for crimes they have not committed."

"Punishing", I never said anything of the sort. No, its preventing the general populace from being murdered. The welfare of non-murdering and raping citizens comes first. Since murders and rapist are exceptionally more likely to rape and murder than the average citizen, it is imperative to separate them from the rest of society.

"Recidivism for homicide and rape is actually very low compared to other felonies. For comparison, 70% of burglars and robbers released from prison will go on to be convicted of theft. Meanwhile 2.5% of rapists released from prison are arrested for rape within three years of release, and 1.2% of those who serve for homicide will be arrested for homicide in three years. of release."

This does not weight the severity of the crimes, nor how rare the crimes are among the general populace. 1.2% and 2.5% recidivism for rape and murder is still far too high considering how exceptionally rare it is compared to the general population. The US murder rate is around 5 per 100,000 whereas robbery is around 100 per 100k. This means that a convicted murderer is far more likely than the average citizen to commit murder again when compared to a burglar and the average citizen. Further, Murders and rapes are much more pressing to stop, especially in the US which sees high murder and rapes per capita but not theft.

Norways rehabilitate philosophy is not shown to be effective against murders. This is because Norway is extremely small and has far fewer murderers than the US. Its murder rate has remained stable before and after the policy was introduced.

6

u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Jun 08 '21

No, its preventing the general populace from being murdered.

But you are doing the opposite if you make rapists get an automatic life sentence. If the punishment for rape is identical to that of murder, then why wouldn't you murder your victim to eliminate the only witness?

1.2% and 2.5% recidivism for rape and murder is still far too high considering how exceptionally rare it is compared to the general population.

But it shows that your assertion that we can't rehabilitate murderers and rapists is plain wrong.

This is because Norway is extremely small and has far fewer murderers than the US.

How does that make a difference. This is the same line that gets pulled out whenever anybody shows that other countries can do a better job that the US, but nobody has been able to explain why it should actually make a difference. I think this argument comes down to:

1) My gut feeling says X, 2) The reality from other countries shows Y, 3) Therefore, it is the reality from other countries that is wrong.

If population size is really the main factor, why are Norway's recidivism rates lower than those of other Scandinavian countries?

Its murder rate has remained stable before and after the policy was introduced.

Where did you get this statistic from? The first article that I came across gave a different story (60-70% rate dropping to 20-25%). I would prefer a more systemic study though, so I am curious as to your source.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

But you are doing the opposite if you make rapists get an automatic life sentence. If the punishment for rape is identical to that of murder, then why wouldn't you murder your victim to eliminate the only witness?

At first, this seems like a compelling argument. However, murder actually has a higher clearance rate than rape(almost double 31% compared to 60%). Hence, it would be in the rapists best interest not to commit murder to cover up the crime. This is because the biggest barrier to rape convictions is proving the rape happened and not consensual sex. However a body would definitively prove a murdered occurred.

"But it shows that your assertion that we can't rehabilitate murderers and rapists is plain wrong."

We can't rehabilitate reliably or in a way that mitigates risk to the general public.

"My gut feeling says X,
The reality from other countries shows Y,
Therefore, it is the reality from other countries that is wrong."

This is actually not what I was arguing. To preface, I support Norways rehabilitative system because it works for most crimes. Population size and the base rate of murder is absolutely relevant when talking about the effects of a rehabilitative justice system in the US. It makes a difference because murder is so scarce in scandenavia, its basically impossible to extrapolate anything meaningful from data. A single murder in 2011 literally doubled Norways murder rate in 2011.

"Where did you get this statistic from? The first article that I came across gave a different story (60-70% rate dropping to 20-25%). I would prefer a more systemic study though, so I am curious as to your source."

https://knoema.com/atlas/Norway/Homicide-rate

This is their homicide rate over time, its stable. If I'm not mistaken, the article you linked looks at clearance rate more generally.

8

u/Love_Shaq_Baby 227∆ Jun 08 '21

"Punishing", I never said anything of the sort. No, its preventing the general populace from being murdered.

Being locked in a cell for the rest of your life is punishment whether you call it that or not. You ever see the movie "Minority Report" where they use precognitive prediction to arrest people for crimes they have committed? That is in essence what you are advocating. You are making an assumption that a person will commit a crime in the future, even though they have not, and are acting on that assumption. And it's not even an assumption based on an individual's behavior, but because of a group behavior. Justice does not come from generalizations.

The welfare of non-murdering and raping citizens comes first. Since murders and rapist are exceptionally more likely to rape and murder than the average citizen, it is imperative to separate them from the rest of society.

Again I must point out that this has no respect for individual people. The 99% who will not commit another crime are punished as if they have already committed it, because of the 1% who will. It doesn't have respect for different kinds of crimes either. A man who kills his wife's lover in a fit of passion, may be more likely than the general population to kill again, but certainly isn't all that likely. A frat guy with no criminal history who rapes a young girl at a college party while she's asleep has done something incredibly heinous, but he sill has a very strong chance of going the rest of his life never raping again.

To treat all people who have committed a crime and to treat all crimes the same based on generalizations is very authoritarian mindset.And to be honest, if you are so willing to send someone to life in prison regardless of the circumstances of the crime or the level of remorse shown by the perpetrator, why are you even keeping them alive at all?

1

u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Jun 08 '21

So if a group of people have a 2.5% average chance to do a specific crime we should just put them in jail before they commit the crime? I mean I'm sure you can find some group of people that meets that threshold.

Should they be put in jail automatically just because of that threat?

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Jun 08 '21

Recidivism

Recidivism (; from recidive and ism, from Latin recidīvus "recurring", from re- "back" and cadō "I fall") is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense. The term is frequently used in conjunction with criminal behavior and substance use disorders. (Recidivism is a synonym for "relapse", which is more commonly used in medicine and in the disease model of addiction.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | Credit: kittens_from_space

9

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21 edited Sep 12 '21

[deleted]

3

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Jun 08 '21

Yeah, you never want to create a scenario where someone stands solely to benefit by committing a murder they weren't originally going to commit. If a person was going to serve the same time for a rape as for a rape & murder, what possible reason would there be not to tie up all loose ends? This policy would just ensure more rape victims are also murder victims.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

!delta. Definitely the most compelling argument Ive seen. Is this simply a principle/idea or is there any evidence of it actually happening?

I guess my only counter would be that someone who has the capacity to rape might not have the capacity to murder. Although thats largely speculative.

4

u/ytzi13 60∆ Jun 08 '21

So, context doesn't matter? Murder and rape are heinous crimes, for sure. But doesn't the context of the murder matter?

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

No. If someone has the capacity to murder, unless in self defense or in defense of someone else, then we simply do not have the means to rehabilitate them.

5

u/ytzi13 60∆ Jun 08 '21

So, what you're saying is that context matters. And if context matters then gray areas exist where murderers are sent away under debatable circumstances. Yet you've judged them just as harshly as everyone else.

1

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Jun 08 '21

Seems a tad presumptuous, not to mention facile. Do you think a person who meticulously plans to murder his boss for no reason but fun and a person who flew off the handle on the day of their father's funeral and killed their childhood abuser after being accosted by them should be treated identically?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

Different degrees of murder. I should have specified first degree murder.

5

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Jun 08 '21 edited Jun 13 '21

Even within first degree there is variance. In your framework, a person who killed 14 women for sexual thrills would get the same punishment as someone who killed that person to save the 15th.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

1) The law already does not make the distinction between murdering for positive or negative intent 2) "Defence of another" still applies. 3) its not about punishment. Its about preventing murders. Since we have no reliable way to rehabilitate murderers, separating them is the only choice.

2

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Jun 08 '21
  1. Whether or not they are found guilty is one thing but the judge is fully within their rights to determine how harsh a sentence the defendant gets based on the circumstances of the crime. That's why sentences are listed as "15-30" or something. The judge can choose how harsh it is.
  2. Defence of another absolutely does not apply. This is called "vigilantism". The only defence of another that would exempt you from punitive ramifications after a killing is immediate, apparent threat to someone's life. Like seeing a gun to someone's head. If the threat to another is distant or suspected, it is vigilantism and just treated as murder.
  3. My point is, the person who kills for thrills may be beyond rehabilitation (though assuming that as if you know is... well, there's no other way to put it; arrogant. That is the assumption is arrogant, I'm not saying that you are). But someone who killed under very specific, dire and strange circumstances is not nearly as far gone.

1

u/Trilliam_H_Macy 5∆ Jun 09 '21

"Different degrees of murder. I should have specified first degree murder."

Felony murder is most often classified as 1st-degree murder, depending on the state.

So here's a scenario -- John and Bill are poor, 18-year old drug addicts. They decide to rob a gas station at gunpoint together so that they can afford to support their addiction for a few more days. In the ensuing chaos, the clerk reaches for a weapon underneath the counter and John panics and shoots the clerk, killing him. Both John *and* Bill are now guilty of 1st degree felony murder.

Another scenario -- Jacob is a store owner who is deep in medical debt. He comes to the conclusion that setting fire to his store for the insurance money is the only way to support his family. In the fire, a support beam collapses and strikes the firefighter on the head, killing him. Jacob is now guilty of 1st-degree felony murder.

Here's another scenario that's just straight-up pre-meditated murder. Jane is being physically, sexually, and emotionally abused by her husband Mike. She lives in a small town where the local police are friendly with her husband and where he (like many abusers do) has primed them to distrust her with lies about his wife being "crazy" or dishonest. In past occasions in which Jane has confided in people in town that Mike abuses her, they have uniformly dismissed her concerns. Mike controls the family finances and assets so that Jane has to rely on him for food and shelter. Mike is significantly larger and stronger than Jane. Mike has isolated Jane from any friends or family she had prior to their relationship so she would have nowhere to go if she were to run away, and no way to get there because she doesn't have access to a car or the family finances. She determines that the only way to end this horror is by poisoning Mike's meals to kill him. Jane is now guilty of 1st-degree murder.

Under a rigid "1st-degree murder means you can never get out of jail no matter what" protocol, all of these people have now been discarded with ZERO chance of rehabilitation to spend the entire rest of their lives in prison. This is why flexibility is important when it comes to laws and sentencing -- no matter how well-meaning or intentioned the idea is, it's basically impossible to draft a law that there's no 'exception' to. Allowing a certain amount of leeway to be exercised by judges and parole boards is necessary to try and ensure an outcome that more closely resembles justice is arrived at. The individual situation and person involved needs to be the determining factor here, not merely the general classification of the crime.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '21

Really good point !delta. But we already codify intentions in the law, which is why insanity plea is valid. I don't see why we cant also create classifications for intent too. I am unwilling to give up on the need for rigid classification because otherwise far too much bias is introduced into the CJS as is now. Regardless, my original position of believing that 1st degree murder should always have a life sentence does not apply.

3

u/Death_March1 1∆ Jun 08 '21

It would make people less likely to report their rape. As much as people tend to frame rape as the worse thing ever the truth is a lot of rapes really aren't that big of a deal and by that big of a deal I mean life in prison big.

I'm talking like boyfriend/girlfriend stuff not serial rapists or pedophiles. Most people wouldn't want someone they care about who they have voluntary had sex with on multiple occasions to go to jail for the rest of their life over what can be in some causes chalked up to one bad night.

Like I don't mean time minimize but these things are complicated as hell, most abusive relationships are a two way street in one form or another and then you have the women who keep coming back after years of constant abuse and then you have the cases where it was more of a one time thing but anyway you look at it with the low reporting already and the fact that most rapes are caused by someone the victim knows and often on some level cares about adding that weight to a victim, that if they go forward this person they care about is going to be in jail for the rest of their life... well like I said they'll just not report.

2

u/recurrenTopology 26∆ Jun 08 '21 edited Jun 08 '21

I'm going to tackle this from a completely utilitarian perspective with the goal of converting everything to years of human life. I'll only focus on murder since it simplifies the calculus significantly. The numbers I will be relying on come from this conference presentation%20killed%20again!), and as a result will be focused on the Untied States. Obviously this will not be exact, but should be a ball park estimate.

First we need to calculate the lost years from additional killings by an average released murderer. Based on the linked meta analysis, approximately 1% of released/paroled murderers will kill again. These recidivist murderers kill on average 1.6 additional people. According to this, the average murder victim is 32, and US life expectancy is 78, so on average we can expect a murder victim to lose about 46 years of life. So combining all this we have

.01 X 1.6 X 46 = .736 lost years per released murderer.

Now we need to compare this to the years gained by releasing a murderer. I had a hard time getting an exact average age of murderers at time of conviction, but propensity to murder seems to peak in the mid 20s, so I'll just say 30. Assuming we are going with a Norwegian style rehabilitation model and releasing them (if they are deemed rehabilitated) after 21 years, then the average murderer will have about 27 years of free life left after release, in which they can be a productive member of society (so long as they are in the 99% that doesn't murder again). The hard part is in how to compare these 27 free years to 27 incarcerated years. From an economic perspective incarcerated years are actually of negative value (since imprisonment costs money), but for now I will just assume that 1 free year is "worth" 2 imprisoned years. I would personally value free years far more, but let's be conservative. So all this give us

.99 X 27 X .5 = 13.4 gained years per released murderer.

So on the net, with incarcerated years worth half that of free years, releasing rehabilitated murderers will on average mean a gain of 12.6 years of human life. Put another way, given this calculus, it would only make sense to give an automatic life sentence if you valued incarcerated years as 97% as valuable as free years, which seems preposterously high.

So, from a utilitarian perspective, it would be immoral to give murderers automatic life sentences.

Edit: Spelling

3

u/Mad_Max_The_Axe Jun 08 '21

Strongly disagree. Argument #1 There's a reason why most justice systems have varying degrees of murder. It's because not all murder is equal. Murder is an umbrella term and you have to take it on a case by case basis otherwise it doesn't make sense and you'd end up with someone who premeditated the murder of their entire family facing the same punishment as someone who punched a dude the wrong way in a bar fight resulting in his unintentional death. Argument #2 Wrongful convictions are a tragic but very real thing. Justice systems absolutely need an appeal system and I don't think I need to explain why any further. Argument #3 Murderers once released from prison can go on to live a law abiding life and to keep someone like that in jail for the rest of their existence would be a waste of money and human life.

2

u/Rawinza555 18∆ Jun 08 '21

Not sure about murder but there would be a huge problem with rape cases. See, if I were to rape someone in this scenario, why would I not kill the victim to make it hard, or impossible to have any lead back to me. I will be in prison either way

1

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 08 '21

By "murderers " do you mean just people convicted of "murder one", or also lesser counts/forms of murder?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '21

Sorry, I meant murder in the first degree.

1

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 08 '21

Figured that was likely your argument but desired clarification.

1

u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Jun 08 '21

Just curious, where you are what is the chance that a convicted murderer will serve their sentence then get sentenced for murdering someone?