[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Acey

All I can personally do is hope that they're both dead. I've been on this board a long time and I'm borderline shocked that life in prison for heinous crimes is considered an irrational position, especially on a board that previously did not seem brain broken by the left.

If I took a stroll on a street downtown tomorrow asking people if this guy should get life in prison without parole, how many people would say no? Less than zero.

I really wish that people would have the basic critical capacity to not boil anything down to binaries or ultimates. This isn't a left/right debate, and it isn't arguing absolutes.

Life in prison is currently the maximum sentence for first-degree murder in Canada. And should Myles Sanderson be caught alive and processed according to the justice system that is the sentence he will likely face (based on the information and charges).

That charge/sentence is separate from the concept of parole. I'm personally opposed to any system that, by default, restricts any possibility of rehabilitation, such as limitless denial of parole or the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Acey

You must have missed the memo, you cold and callous man. 50+ convictions since age 18, and mass murder.

Life in prison is too cruel for this man.

This is a really poor quality reply, though I may not be as intimately familiar with the accused's criminal history as you are.

Originally Posted by Acey

You hold that position life in prison is too severe a punishment for anyone, do you not? That's what we're discussing here. This is the exact discourse we had in the politics thread so don't make it seem like I'm missing stating anyone's position.

I'm not going to answer for Pepsi, but I'm going to go ahead and answer for Pepsi by saying life in prison is not too severe a sentence. There should merely be the option available to the system to allow for reintegration into society, whatever the stipulations may be.

This doesn't mean that automatic parole review should constitute automatic parole. It should mean that anyone convicted of a crime of this magnitude be afforded the tenets of a system founded in rehabilitation, even if they are proven not qualified for reintegration time and time again.

If a group of experts convene at regularly scheduled intervals, afforded by the law, and conclude that a person is not rehabilitated to the degree deemed acceptable by the standards of said law, said person shall not be offered parole.