brodie21 said:
hold on, how would they rehabilitate this kid into society? who would hire him? who would count him as a friend? how can he have a life after what he did?
Easily; you get over it. You work through it. You'd be surprised at how much a psychiatrist and therapy can do. Forgiving someone takes much more than simply punishing them, but that's what sets mankind apart from animals; we understand, or at least should, that one life's fate cannot be sealed by one act alone. I'm not saying that this wasn't tragic, I just don't think that he should die for it.
Admittedly, I'm biased, as I don't support the death penalty.
tsb247 said:
Philosopher Ernst van den Haag would argue that imperfect justice is better than no justice at all. Let the little bastard fry.
1. 5 years is hardly enough for a crime of this magnitude and senselessness.
2. Rehabilitation is a very transparent concept - smart criminals will fake their way through. It only works if an individual wants and acknowledges a need for change. The problem is that many criminals don't see a problem with their behavior, and many don't care to. Thank you criminal psychology class! In the case of a mentally disturbed person, death is not a viable option due to the fact that they are not in full control of their actions. This is the only case where rehabilitation is the best option. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the case here.
3. Prisons are a double-edged sword. They remove criminals from society which it a plus, but it comes at taxpayer cost, and there is a great deal of argument as to how much they actually help. Most of the time criminals who are institutionalized only come out worse than when they went in. Putting people away for life isn't the perfect solution either due to the fact that at some point, prisons will fill up with lifers.
He's a kid. I'm not saying that rehabilitation is infallible; it's anything but. However, there's no reason not to try. I'll gladly pay extra taxes if it means helping some misguided or unfortunate soul get a better grip on life. This is akin to disease treatment; if someone has a tumour in their arm, the safest, most decisive course of action would be to cut off the whole limb. However, even though it carries with it the option of failure, specialized treatment could yield much better results, even if costlier.
I think van den Haag was misled in his assumption that all murderers will repeat. What of those who kill in self-defence, or a moment of rage? What of those who aren't seriously ill? There are many shades of gray in this world of black and white. You can't just ignore them.
