do you think all guilty convictions arre worthy of reveiw sandra? presumably not. so if a violent murderer potentually finds some way out and into society , do you not find that prospect a bit abhorrent?
Violent murderers, rapists and paeodphiles "find a way" out and into society all the time, Wakey. It's called the end of their sentence (often with early release). Since our prison regime is not, despite claims to the contrary, geared towards rehabilitation, there is
nothing to say these people have been changed in any positive way by their period in prison - i.e. they are just as likely to murder, rape and harm children as they were when they went in.
Do I find that abhorrent? Yes, but it's the system we've got and I find the death penalty even more abhorrent (which will, undoubtedly, be the source of some lively "debate"). So what do we do? We don't have a system, generally, that allows these people to be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives and if people are upset by the prospect of paying what is, in relative terms, a small amount for reviews of questionable cases, how would they feel about paying to keep people in prison for 30, 40, even 50 years?
Personally, I don't think whole life sentences are a particularly good idea either. Instead of heaping such vitriolic hate on those who do offend and are guilty, why don't we take a step back and consider trying to find out
why they do what they do and if there is a way to ensure they don't do it again after release? Wouldn't that be a far better use of resources?
The prison sentence is seen as a way for the guilty offender to "repay his debt to society" and the length of that sentence is set to reflect the "debt" created by the crime. Once that "debt" is "paid," is it right that there can be calls for sentences to be extended on the basis that the prisoner is still a danger, when we, as a society, have done nothing to try to address or reduce that danger?
Quite simply, we can't have it all ways. The system we have says prisoners serve a sentence of a given length and then are released back into society. What can we do to make that system more effective, since, at the moment, it's all we've got?
can you honestly say you question why this would be opposed in the luke case?
Yes, I can. Why would anyone object to an independent review of evidence, conducted by experts, which is not being funded by taxpayers money, the result of which would almost certainly put the whole discussion to bed once and for all? What is wrong with that?
Of course I'm not calling for a review of all guilty cases, nor would I. But in cases like this one, where there are serious questions, even amongst the legal and expert professions, are we just to shrug our shoulders and blindly trust that there "must be an explanation"?
I always believed the justice system existed to find out the truth. I know, now, I was wrong, but I still believe the truth matters. What if Luke Mitchell didn't murder Jodi? What justice has she had? Don't you want to know? I do.