I don't think 8 years for murder is reasonable. Within a lifespan of 80 years, someone could kill about 10 people. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Your comment and the one to whom you respond show these two points of view. It is interesting that at the moment in the US you have more a "keep the criminals away from the society" point of view and in Europe "try to reintegrate them".
I don't understand that. If we're worried about criminals' integration with society then we shouldn't put them in prison. Prisons exist to separate people from society.
Both by deterring would-be criminals, and by keeping future lawbreakers behind bars where they can't do harm.
Too harsh a punishment often only succeeds in putting someone in a position where they are even more likely to break the law.
E.g. you catch someone for smoking pot, and they get civil service and have to visit social support/psychologist/whatever. This might not do any good but it might do some.
If you send them to jail for 5 years, they it's basically guaranteed that they will get out being in a much worse position than they were before, and more likely do commit crimes.
After that, no reason to keep me in prison any more right? It's not like the dead person or their family count for anything - it's all about me and the government's budget. Yeah?
Yes, it's not about the dead person. They're dead.
It's also not about the family of the dead person. They've already been harmed.
It's not about you, it's about preventing future crimes. If you've been turned into a productive member of society, great -- everyone's off better now. If you haven't, the system has failed society (not just you).
Heck, there's a good chance prison isn't even the best solution for you personally. Most likely you need actual counselling or you're facing social problems. Containment is the last resort.
You don't fix bugs by hiding them -- you fix them by figuring out why they happened in the first place and determining how to decrease the likelihood of them happening again.
EDIT: In response to the killed throwaway: if you kill someone "in the heat of the moment" and it's not self-defence or anything else we consider acceptable, of course there's still a problem in need of fixing: self control. If you kill a man because he sleeps with your wife, no matter how betrayed you might feel, it's still a problem with how you act on those feelings. But this is only visible if you stop thinking "what is an appropriate punishment" and start thinking "why did this happen" and "what could have prevented it".
My belief is that the society failed to correctly educate the man who eventually became a criminal. I don't think people are born with such desires.
That's not something to lionize though. Pretty sad all around. There's no great wisdom there, just a leftist coping method employed by the father, similar to what a religious person would do.
Besides, I don't think you need to be particularly leftist or religious to cope this way. These ideas of forgiveness and rehabilitation permeate Norwegian (even Nordic) society, and are mostly secular these days. In fact, quite a few Norwegians will tell you that they consider harsh punishments «gamaltestamentleg», i.e. only fit for reactionaries who look to the Old Testament for prescriptions on how to handle things.
I don't think it matters if the father was left, right or center. Whatever the basis, he made a decision that will ultimately benefit society (which is the main goal, right?). Whatever the political stance, we are a society. Meaning the basic idea, which is that everyone contributes so that the whole benefits, should be of utmost importance.
What reasoning is this?
Why not have a only "for the rest of your life" punishments? You know, a thug being a thug, probably born like it. Won't ever change those people. Better lock them up, put them away. /s