|
Top-level
> you can't imprison someone although you can stop them from harming others How would this work in practice if, for example, someone is hell-bent on killing people (e.g. due to mental illness)? Would you just throw them out of the city every time accepting that from time to time they would succeed? Would you execute them instead of imprisonment? While this question might sound like a troll, it is not. I am honestly curious how situations like this would be handled. 5 comments
 While they are an active threat to others, they can choose to undergo reform as a way to prove that they are no longer an active threat. The point of saying no to jail, is to emphasize that a person is fundamentally free, and that taking away their freedom must be the last resort and a temporary solution. In cases of active conflict, you can kill someone, but your aim isn't to kill, but to render the opponent incapable of harming, to contain their threat. In the same way, jailing / sentencing someone for being threatening, and confining them while they plot to murder someone, are two very different aims and comes from two very different worldviews and views about human beings He wasn't hellbent on killing ppl, he was a person who took up terrorism because he thought that murdering those children would be instrumental to achieving political aims. He wasn't born with an urge to kill others. He was radicalized over time to believe the ends justifies the means |
Gregory's Server
@graywolf @anlomedad
First of all this question much oversimplifies human beings. There is no such human as you describe it, that is a cartoonish hypothetical. There are ppl who have periods of violent psychosis, sure, and there may be someone who develop a strong psychopathic behavior with homicidal leanings.
You can confine such ppl while they pose an active threat, but you cannot sentence them and forget about them. Their confinement is predicated on the threat being active.