life prisoners and medical advances that prolong life

[RFayette]

The longest time consecutively anyone's ever served in prison is 70 years according to Wikipedia.  Personally, in this hypothetical scenario, I'd just redefine a life sentence as 100 years and then have the death penalty as an option for jurors to consider.

[RFayette]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

"Beyond reasonable doubt" implies a high enough standard for proof that we would release large numbers of people who we know are probably dangerous.

It is possible to keep an eye on former inmates who might or might not be dangerous through means less invasive than prison. This should be enough of a deterrent in most of the cases.

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.   I think that the burden of proof has to lie on the defendant to show he has been rehabilitated after committing a very serious crime, not on society to let him out in the absence of overwhelming proof to the contrary. 

[RFayette]

The maximum prison sentence should be 20 years unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the person being released would represent an imminent danger on the community (and even then, such an inmate should probably be institutionalized rather than jailed).

The interesting thing about this hypothetical is that weakens the utilitarian argument that often underpins this logic. Statistically most violent crime is done by young people, and beyond that it drops right down; so it stands to reason that there is less value in holding people in jail for a huge amount of time into the middle and old ages. But in this hypothetical, medical advancement means people are kept in peak physical fitness and youthfulness, meaning the true irredeemable psychos are just as likely to reoffend no matter how long they stay confined

Part of it may be that more life experience also decreases people's violent tendencies over time.  If a hypothetical immortality cure would still retain this feature of aging, then the utilitarian argument may still stand.  Of course, this is all hypothetical, and there's really no way of knowing what would happen in this scenario.  I'm definitely not a utilitarian - I think someone should be punished even if it could be guaranteed that they would never commit the action again - so I would still favor it in this scenario.

[RFayette]

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.

As I said, these people don't even belong in prison in the first place, but rather in a mental institution where their condition can be treated.

This is where we disagree. I think that because of human nature being depraved, someone without a mental illness can give themselves up so completely to evil that there is no turning back.  I think punishment is more appropriate for them than a fruitless attempt at treatment.

[RFayette]

But what do you do with the truly impulsive or those with a pathological and nearly irresistible desire to inflict physical harm on others?  Things like electronic monitoring can only help after the fact, but would do nothing to help the public in situations like these.

As I said, these people don't even belong in prison in the first place, but rather in a mental institution where their condition can be treated.

This is where we disagree. I think that because of human nature being depraved, someone without a mental illness can give themselves up so completely to evil that there is no turning back.  I think punishment is more appropriate for them than a fruitless attempt at treatment.

I'm not the one to make that argument, but to use total depravity as a rationale to refuse extending mercy and forgiveness seems pretty antithetical to what I know of Christian teaching.

I think the Christian teaching on forgiveness is far more about interactions between individuals than what we as a society should do to lawbreakers.   After all, I think the death penalty for murder is clearly affirmed in Romans and Genesis 9, for instance.  Certainly forgiveness can play a role in the justice system when someone can show that they are rehabilitated, but punishment does as well, and life imprisonment seems to be a fitting penalty for a career criminal who has proven after numerous second chances that he remains a danger to society.

My point was saying that simply wanting to continually do evil doesn't absolve someone of responsibility for their actions.  Mental illness which prevents people from making choices is one thing, but my point was that someone who continually chooses to do evil is simply reflecting the human condition.  It seems wrong to imply a habitual criminal belongs in a mental institution simply because they are a habitual criminal and want to keep choosing to break the law.       

[RFayette]

I typed out a long response but I got logged out, but I think the word "incorrigible" is better than "irresistible."  The person would still have agency, but his desires have become so twisted that even though he fully could choose not to commit a crime, he has no interest in doing so. 

As far as forgiveness goes in a penal system, I think there has to be a balance, but the interests of those who obey the law have to take precedent over those who choose to break it, especially when it comes to those who are repeat offenders - it's not just the offender and the victim here, but also all of society who could be potential future victims that needs to be taken into account.  The deterrent effect of punishment in others is also an important factor at play, and I think these distinctions are necessary when we decide what punishments are appropriate.