One of the central arguments for abolishing the death penalty is that life "with no possibility of parole" will keep us just as safe and will impose all the retribution we need (or should tolerate) in the 21st Century. We heard this over and over in Boston Marathon case: That if we'd just put Tsarnaev in jail for life, he'd be miserable for decades, contemplating the suffering he caused.
It's all double-talk. Don't fall for it. Abolitionists have no intention of stopping when they have ended the death penalty -- and, given large chunks of their philosophy, why should they? They tell us that people can change, that redemption is always possible, that the killer was himself a victim, and that after a certain age (there doesn't appear to be much agreement about what age), it's simply not worth it to the taxpayers to pay the bills for geriatric prisoners.
Or, to sum it up, LWOP is a now-you-see-it-and-now-you-don't game. There is no such thing as LWOP even today -- legislation can retroactively reduce prison terms, and the executive can grant clemency. And even less will LWOP be around for long if we abolish the death penalty; to the contrary, the groundwork for abolishing LWOP is already being laid.
Leave a comment