Murder and Repentance

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.

Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.

Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.

I'm OK with having a very strict standard for what constitutes evidence of genuine repentance. Obviously, if you committed a crime, it makes sense that you lose the benefit of doubt. However, when this standard is met, the person should always be released.

What would this standard of evidence be though? I mean, you can hardly look inside their mind to see whether the repentance is genuine or not, the only real evidence you have either way is a person's word. I mean, you could attempt to implement various 'lie detector' tests, but then I'm not sure how that would work with what is essentially a mentally internal matter like repentance.

To add to what Cassius said, even if the offender is genuinely repentant, there is still the problem of backsliding. Pastors and priests hear the same confessions over and over again from the same people. A huge number of those backsliders aren't faking their repentance yet still screw up week after week. That backsliding may not be a big deal outside of the offender's family and friends when the sin is watching pornography, but it is when the offense is drunk driving or armed robbery.