In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Wiley wrote:
Actually I agree with you but the risk is that someone will let them
out again. Aren't you guys about to repeal the 'three strikes' law? I
know it's resulted in jailing a lot of people who are plain stupid
rather than dangerous but the idea, applied to people who commit crimes
of violence, has a lot of merit IMO. I recall seeing stats somewhere
(and we all know what they say about stats...) indicating the majority
of crime was committed by the same small group of the population.

The risk is minimal. Do you really expect anyone to let a serial
killer out... ooops... well, let's not use that example. g But,
mostly, life in prison without the possibility of parole, means
exactly that. Also, if for example, DNA evidence turns up that
exonerates someone, you don't have to dig them up.

Yeah as I said I agree with you. And given the sloppy evidence used to
convict people I'd be real hesitant about capital punishment. As you
say DNA evidence has shown that certain people couldn't have commited
the crimes they were convicted of. Makes me wonder about the others too
- be interesting to look at the % proven wrong.

PDW