> Guy that stalked and assaulted a woman was released early on parole. Proceeds to stalk woman again, is arrested, prosecutors don't press charges. Assaults the woman again, is arrested again, prosecutors don't press charges. Eventually, the man kills the woman.
I don't understand what this is supposed to be a case of. Are you suggesting that if he weren't let out on parole and had served his full sentence that he wouldn't have murdered the woman, or that all people who commit crimes should be given a choice between a life sentence or execution to prevent recidivism?
And do we make this decision without reference to the statistics, e.g. how many people were released from prison for assaulting a woman failed to go on to murder that same woman? I suspect the proportion would be very high. So is it worth it to imprison or execute any number of offenders who would not go on to commit even worse crimes if it saves just one woman from being killed? Have we looked up the number of released felons who have saved lives, have raised well-adjusted, productive children, have contributed to the world? Are we sure that this number is vastly lower than the number that have gone on to murder women? Could we even boost this number by giving prisoners education and safety, and making sure they can find employment after release, or is that a more onerous prospect than paying $50K/year to keep them caged eternally?
In fact, seeing as most women and children are murdered by their (male) loved ones, have we compared the likelihood of a man without a record to murder their partner to men who have a record of abuse? It may not be low enough to justify not imprisoning all men indefinitely, especially if citing a single murdered woman constitutes an argument.
> If there is a more efficient and effective way to do this, that would be great.
It's not effective at all, we have the worst violent crime rates in the developed world.