Now, we are starting to launch a strike against life in prison in the pages of the NYT
Life sentences certainly keep criminals off the streets. But, as decades pass and prisoners grow more mature and less violent, does the cost of keeping them locked up justify what may be a diminishing benefit in public safety? By a conservative estimate, it costs $3 billion a year to house America's lifers. And as prisoners age, their medical care can become very expensive.
At the same time, studies show, most prisoners become markedly less violent as they grow older.
The NYT which has pushed in the past against the death penalty has decided to start becoming even more progressive in their war for criminals
The article goes on with the appeal to authority often used by the political left "Europe"
In much of the rest of the world, sentences of natural life are all but unknown.
"Western Europeans regard 10 or 12 years as an extremely long term, even for offenders sentenced in theory to life," said James Q. Whitman, a law professor at Yale and the author of "Harsh Justice," which compares criminal punishment in the United States and Europe.
and the next thing in typical political leftist fashion "even dirt poor third world countries are more civilized then us"
Mexico will not extradite defendants who face sentences of life without parole. And when Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish gunman who tried to kill Pope John Paul II in 1981, was pardoned in 2000, an Italian judge remarked, "No one stays 20 years in prison."
This is why eliminating the Death Penalty for "Life in Prison" won't do. Because the people who want to take the worst offenders out of the chair now want them to serve at the most 20 years, but more likely 10-12
Serial rapist gets sentanced to "Life" of 20 years... elgible for Parole in most of the US in 7 years.. gets out in 10-12
Is that justice?
Sadly the New york times is fighting a war on justice, not a war on crime