18 Year old Convicted to Life for Burning 2 Trashcans

So lets say he is offered freedom in the future, and he rejects it. So they push parole off for another 5 years maybe. Some short time after he says Ok i want out. Does he still have the right to freedom? Would it be justified to keep him in jail against his will, when really he is only in jail because of his own will. Its obvious these threats are only to increase his sentence, so in 10 years when the threats have stopped and his parole is no time soon, what would come of him?

Seems it is easy to say, tough. But is it justice?

Ok, here goes. Noone has yet pointed out the obvious that this is a young man who is homeless and probably abusing some substance or another. Let's assume alcohol, ok ok ok, I know, that's why I put it in the subject line. More than likely, 18 months is enough time to sober up, read a few books, pull himself together and realize that prison is not the paradise it seemed when he was filled up with passion punch or Olde English. That being said, an "indefinite" sentence should concern everyone on ATS, or so I would think!

Originally posted by chissler
Some short time after he says Ok i want out. Does he still have the right to freedom? Would it be justified to keep him in jail against his will, when really he is only in jail because of his own will.

Seems it is easy to say, tough. But is it justice?

It's on the edge. It's right, and it's legal, but to be asbolutely unassailably, perfectly just I think they have to add an anti-abuse clause which specifies add-on time as being applicable not only for insurance of the public good but for correction of any other malfeasance which landed the guy in jail (obviously that's not exactly how i'd word the law).

Afterall, the guy is abusing tax dollars as if they were provided for his convenience, and furthermore he did commit a crime. Everyone is in jail willingly. Robbing a liquor store is willing. Shooting someone is willing. etc etc etc. You can't just let a guy out because he's no longer willing. It's good that he's no longer willing, because that means that when his lawful term is expired that there isn't much danger of him coming back, but barring some kind of law which provides early release on demonstration of rehabilitation, he still has to serve the sentence that was legally incurred by his choices.

Really modifying the law isn't completely necessary, but I'm big on intellectual honesty, especially where government is concerned because I don't beleive the government should be doing anything that it can't logically justify with its citizens lives and tax dollars, so it is my preference that they make the law as specific as possible.

Gee, now all I've got to do is become a citizen in the UK and maybe my preference will be worth spitting on So much for my preference.

I'm not a big believer in the theory that you can place a man in a concrete cocoon for several years... then crack it open and magically an angel appears in his place.

Oracle's sentence:

4 months hard labor. Any time he decides he doesn't want to work he spends 36 hours in a cage with only water and the 4 months period starts over.

If he is still in the system after a period of 5 years the case will be reviewed and a new sentence handed down.

Next...

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Sri Oracle]