Should life in prison really mean life in prison?

[Ghostwalker]

On Tuesday, a 41-year old man shot three people at a drive-in McDonalds in Finland:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/r...g_1815954.html

In 1997, he had been sentenced for life in prison for a murder and two attempted homicides. He was released in December 2009 after 12 years in prison:



In Finland, those sentenced for life are in average pardoned after 13 years:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/07/p...s_1813792.html

Should a life sentence really mean a life sentence? I'm not sure for first time offenders, but I think at least the second time it should. If they'll release this man again after another 13 years, he'll be about 54 and still a danger to the society, because it seems he doesn't learn.

we have a similar case here in Sweden where Mathias Flink,who murdered 7 poeple 16 years ago,
have gotten his penalty converted from life, to 32 years in prison.
This means that he will be out after less then 2/3 ("good behaviour")
of the time since he will be released in 2015.

Imo 21 years is too short for someone who killed 7 poeple. Life should be life for such crimes.
If they want convert it to time it should be the length x the nr of people he killed.

[Eki]

we have a similar case here in Sweden where Mathias Flink,who murdered 7 poeple 16 years ago,
have gotten his penalty converted from life, to 32 years in prison.
This means that he will be out after less then 2/3 ("good behaviour")
of the time since he will be released in 2015.

Imo 21 years is too short for someone who killed 7 poeple. Life should be life for such crimes.
If they want convert it to time it should be the length x the nr of people he killed.

Yes, that shows it's not perfectly safe to give guns to military persons either. On the same year that Flink commited his crime was a similar case in Finland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mika_Muranen

[maxu05]

IMO, anyone that commits a crime that warrants life in prison, should be executed.

[anthonyvop]

Tbh there were major doubts about whether he was even involved and even parents of the victims didn't believe that he was the actual bomber....

Oh Please.....He was convicted in a court of law that gives the accused every benefit of the doubt.

Of course Libya gives a hero's welcome to people who didn't do anything.

[markabilly]

Oh Please.....He was convicted in a court of law that gives the accused every benefit of the doubt.

Of course Libya gives a hero's welcome to people who didn't do anything.

besides, he clearly will not be blowing up that airplane again and since as to doing other airplanes, buildings, buses et al, well that is not a justification, cause as the wikiekie says, " You can NEVER know for sure if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something".....so let him go....

gee I guess that means only if they try and do not succeed, that you need to lock them up, because they might keep trying.........

[F1boat]

Correction: You can NEVER know for sure if someone is truly dangerous till after they've done something.

I agree and I also think that those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.

[markabilly]

I agree and I also think that those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.

err, if you read the context of eki's statement, he was referencing the so-called opinion that one can not keep someone locked up, just because of some particular crime in the past, because you never know if someone is dangerous and might do that again....

[Eki]

err, if you read the context of eki's statement, he was referencing the so-called opinion that one can not keep someone locked up, just because of some particular crime in the past, because you never know if someone is dangerous and might do that again....

No, I was referring to Garry Walker's post. I said you shouldn't give a death penalty to those you suspect might be dangerous, because you don't know if they'll really be dangerous in the future. Heck, in some cases, you can't even be sure afterwards that they really did the murder they were accused of. Preemptive death penalty would be efficient, but you'd also kill many innocents in the process, which would be counterproductive.

[markabilly]

No, I was referring to Garry Walker's post. I said you shouldn't give a death penalty to those you suspect might be dangerous, because you don't know if they'll really be dangerous in the future. Heck, in some cases, you can't even be sure afterwards that they really did the murder they were accused of. Preemptive death penalty would be efficient, but you'd also kill many innocents in the process, which would be counterproductive.

duh, dude, you can not even read your own posts...walker said kill the killers...those who keep repeating heinous crimes over and over......to keep them from doing it in the future, and avoid wasting resources......... you come along, all screwed up as usual

[F1boat]

No, I was referring to Garry Walker's post. I said you shouldn't give a death penalty to those you suspect might be dangerous, because you don't know if they'll really be dangerous in the future. Heck, in some cases, you can't even be sure afterwards that they really did the murder they were accused of. Preemptive death penalty would be efficient, but you'd also kill many innocents in the process, which would be counterproductive.

Yes! IMO it is preferable, even if regrettable, to risk letting criminal escape that to punish an innocent man.
Of course, in case of proven acts of mayhem, maybe death penalty is medieval, but life sentence should be served appropriately.