If you don't intend to give someone the chance to live their life, then why waste the resources on a life sentence? If they're truly deserving of such a sentence, then free up the cell, food, and money that goes into keeping someone like that alive. Sure, they can absolutely detain someone that long, but securely is a different matter entirely. Most of the people who are in that jail or prison have one of two things on their mind: survivaland escape. Escapes happen. 20 is a long time for sure, but I'd rather it be that than 25, 30, or even higher of people like what we've been discussing looking fora way out.
So all the people serving life without parole now should be killed? It costs millions to execute someone. Not near as much as it does to hold someone for life. The Death Penalty is a waste of resources.
So then, could the execution of a serial offender be considered self-defense from the system itself rather than an independent people/person?
No.
I don't believe it's our job to hunt people like this down either, but what if they don't repent? If they decide not to reflect, or they do and choose to continue? They fool the system into thinking they've changed and come out and take their "hobby" back up? Someone like that Learns just as much from living at that point as they do from dying, and I prefer the road that has the potential to keep innocents safer.
There is nobody to fool. Life without parole means you stay in prison until you die.
How do the states and many many countries with no death penalty survive? Why are they safer than the US and states with no Death Penalty safer than states with the Death Penalty?
