Hacker News Reader

Comment by charlesdm | Hacker News Reader

Should a killer get released after 14 years though, after "good behavior"? If we're talking about premeditated murder, you can be pretty sure you're dealing with an individual who doesn't have good behavior.

Second, 14 (or 21) years for murder, really? A life isn't worth a lot anymore these days..

View on HN

Prison sentences in the Netherlands for aren't imposed as punishment alone, not even mostly. They are primarily tools of prevention (including the prevention of recidivism). If a convicted criminal is no longer considered to be a threat to society what's the point of keeping them locked up? If longer sentences (longer than whatever they are) have not shown to reduce the crime rate through deterrent, why impose them?

Prisons cost money.

I feel like murder (or most major crimes really) is a very special case. I'd prefer a system where the default is a life sentence (a lifetime for a life feels just) but the option to release after n years if relatives/family of the victim agree to it. It's probably very impractical but would appeal most to my personal understanding of justice.

And that goes back to OP's point. Many countries don't view prison as "just", but as a means for rehabilitation or crime-prevention.

I think it can very much be both. But I feel victims are underrepresented in the rehabilitation discussion. My inner moral compass says they should be involved and it shouldn't all be up to review boards. I'm fully aware that I have a somewhat naive worldview though (I'd expect most victims to understand if someone was rehabilitated and be willing to forgive)

One of the reasons we have a justice system instead of revenge and vendettas is that we hope to have progressed a bit past "a life for a life". That is also why we don't let the victims have influence over their release.

As far as I'm concerned, there is indeed a punishment/revenge factor also in our current justice system, besides rehabilitation and keeping the streets safe from wrongdoers. That could lead to minimum sentences, especially for murder and even more so when it's premeditated. In general, I find that judges (in the Netherlands) strike an okay balance.

If I have proposition to kill someone else for money, e.g. $10M, for exchange of 7 years in comfortable Dutch prison, I will grab the money.

If the only reason you haven't murdered anyone is that you haven't been offered enough money, I'm genuinely concerned.

It's just example. People are killing people for way smaller reasons. My price is very high, isn't?

How much people live in Dutch? If Russians will send one killer for every key men in country, country will be their in just 12 years, while they lose nothing, because Dutch prison is much much more comfortable than a flat in Rostov. I see that in Ukraine right now.

Unlike in most other European countries, Dutch law allows for life imprisonment without parole, from which only a royal pardon can save you. Since 1970, 43 people have been convicted, 2 of whom were eventually pardoned, both because of terminal illness. A quick glance through the recent list of convictions[1] shows that most life sentences were imposed in cases of multiple homicide, homicide for financial gain and homicide related to organized crime.

In addition, convicts may be involuntarily committed when their sentence is over (and often before). This is aimed at rehabilitation, but can be extended indefinitely.

[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_tot_levenslang_veroo... (in Dutch)

OK, thank you. So I will not tell anybody that I did that by request of someone else, then serve 12 years and will be free and with money, unless my mother will come in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Mercader (in English).

And I think those involuntarily committed ("tbs") people, many of whom have effectively a life sentence, are not in the statistics in the article.

In the Netherlands, 20 years (with early release after 13-14 years) used to be the maximum sentence, apart from life sentence, which actually used to be really for life. Parole is possible, but seldom used; release for good behaviour (after a certain minimum number of years) was not possible at all. The European Court for Human Rights actually recently forced us to implement an early release possibility. I think a few years ago we also got a 30 year option (with early release after 20), because judges weren't willing to impose a life sentence due to the aforementioned reason.

Also, 14/21 years is about 20-25% of one's life. I think that's quite a lot, really.

> A life isn't worth a lot anymore these days..

Seems you're the one who isn't giving much value to the prisoner's life here.

If rehabilitation can't be accomplished in 14 years, it won't be accomplished in 20 or 30 either so what's the point of keeping them inside an arbitrary number of years after that?

edit: I just noticed you referred to imprisonment as punishment on another thread; that's where we differ in belief.

The point is that they cannot harm us while in prison.

To me, going in at age 20 and coming out at age 34-41 seems like a pretty big chunk of your life gone?

It is, I'm not saying it's not. But the other person is dead and gone forever? Imagine if someone killed your wife/child/brother/mother/etc. Does that seem like a correct punishment?

I'm not talking about accidents (e.g. a car crash), but premeditated murder? I personally think the length of that punishment is not in line with the crime. But hey, I'm getting downvoted to hell, so I guess most people think it is.

> I personally think the length of that punishment is not in line with the crime. But hey, I'm getting downvoted to hell, so I guess most people think it is.

You're getting downvoted because you treat imprisonment as vengeance, as paying back a debt that is owed to the victim's family.

The more reasonable approach is to use imprisonment as a tool which prevents future crimes by the perpetrator and other potential criminals (through rehabilitation and deterrence). This yields better results and higher benefits to society as a whole, even if it might not be as emotionally satisfying to the victim's family.

For most crimes, I definitely agree that imprisonment should be a tool to prevent further crime. In most cases, genuinely punishing someone for (stupid) mistakes (s)he has made is unproductive for society. But murder seems like a very specific situation (to me at least) where someone has crossed the line. Can one really come back from murder?

Would you be comfortable spending time with someone you know who has cold-bloodedly killed another human being? I know I wouldn't. And I'm generally a person who is pretty open about most things.

> Can one really come back from murder?

We pay people to go murder other people and are fine with it. We call them soldiers and sometimes policemen too. Turns out that most people who kill someone else are able to come back more often than not well enough to be able to live in society, although PTSD is a well-known consequence for it.

Soldiers are not paid for murder, they are shot for murder. Check army statute.

I agree that if we can fix the underlying problems causing crime using rehabilitation then we should. There is no question that we have a problem with repeat offender criminals in places like the United States where prison is solely punishment. With that being said, I think it's important both from a moral standpoint (the state exists to protect individuals and their freedoms in my opinion) and also a practical law and order standpoint that victims feel the state has made them whole after a crime is perpetrated against them. Otherwise you increase the probability of extra judicial retaliations.

> Does that seem like a correct punishment?

Prison isn't meant as a punishment in Norway, it is for rehabilitation of the person. People would rather they helped even the worst of people become members of society than let them rot in a cell for "punishment".

Did being sent to the naughty step when you were a kid solve your behavior or was it becoming a better person that solved it?

> Did being sent to the naughty step when you were a kid solve your behavior or was it becoming a better person that solved it?

You can't really compare that though. In 99% of the cases, I agree with what you say and with that line of thought. I just don't when it comes to murder. To me, that seems like the worst of all possible crimes.

> Imagine if someone killed your wife/child/brother/mother/etc. Does that seem like a correct punishment?

Does that matter at all? I mean - no matter the punishment, the victim is dead, and nothing will bring them back.

So yes, lock them up: as minor deterrent (penal codes aren't very effective in that regard, if not even the death penalty prevents murder); to protect society; to give some standardized environment to hopefully correct the perpetrator so that they'll rediscover their humanity; and maybe for some sort of punishment (but that's really an afterthought, because as said, what does it matter?).

But (I hope) I'd refuse to let them also take my humanity (in addition to the life they took).

But the other person is dead regardless of the length of your sentence. No matter how harsh the punishment, he's not coming back. So I don't get that argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com