Muslim who murdered seven schoolgirls for interrupting his prayers gets released after twenty years.

[Bootstoots]

Huh, I was imagining that the Muslim who murdered seven schoolgirls was going to be an Israeli Arab, released by an Israeli government that sometimes paroles murderers at about the 20-year mark, similar to most European states. That this occurred in Jordan disappoints me. You set a high bar, Mouthwash, but you did not quite make it this time.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Is it though? I confess some ignorance on this point. I'll grant you that remorse is often a factor in parole decisions, but I believe pretty much across the board that there is no reason to keep people locked up for 20 years unless there is a real risk they'll reoffend. Contrary to Akka's claims, being unrepentant is not necessarily a sign that one will reoffend. If there is other evidence that he's a risk to reoffend, that's obviously a different story. But then that leads me back to the question I asked El Mac - is that risk diminished by 5 more years in jail? If not, what purpose do the 5 more years serve?

It is not all about if this guy is going to do it again. Jail basically has three reasons: deterrence, prevention and retribution. If prevention was the only finality then nazi war criminals should have been set free immediately. Do you agree on that? I find the utilitarian point of view almost monstrous. Punishment must be in accordance to offense. It is a matter of equity.

 

[Akka]

What point was that again? Why do you keep bringing up other discussions as if they have any relevance to this one? Are you this prejudicial in real life?

My point is pretty clear, but I suppose reading a single sentence might be hard :

Also, I find amusing how many of the same people who happily lobbied to punch a nazi because of what nazism stands for (mass killing of people), suddendly start to split hairs to find excuses for leniency about an actual mass murderer.

Also, you speaking of prejudice is pretty funny
Pot, kettle, all that.

Contrary to Akka's claims, being unrepentant is not necessarily a sign that one will reoffend.

I wonder if it's willing blindness or honest-to-God stupidity.
If you can't manage to understand why being unrepentant of a crime is a pretty good sign you're at a high risk to reoffend...

 

[Mise]

He literally stabbed 7 schoolchildren to death and isn't even sorry. You really think this guy is a changed man? If that isn't enough to convince you that he's a substantial risk of reoffending, then what the hell is?!

To answer on behalf of El Mac: The risk of reoffending doesn't change at all in 5 years. What does change is that 20 is the minimum, and 25 is the maximum. To be released after 20 you need to demonstrate that you are, in fact, a low risk of reoffending. This is an incentive to rehabilitate -- it knocks 5 years off your term, if you go through the process of rehabilitation. It is also 5 extra years where you are definitely not going to stab any more schoolchildren. Finally, it demonstrates to the wider public that the law is being done: early release is conditional, and if you don't fulfil those conditions, you don't get released.

I mean, I really can't believe this is even a discussion.

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, this is all assuming that there's some legal wiggle here between 20 and 25. The articles aren't all that clear. I somewhat suspect that the 25 was put into cause people to be upset (I'm considering the source). Googling doesn't indicate that Jordan has a mandatory maximum, but there's not obvious information on this front. I'd doubt it, in general.

 

[metalhead]

It's a signal of implicit political support to release him early into a hero's welcome. As well, like I said, it's the opposite of deterrence.

Would he not have received that anyways? Would not the exact same argument apply unless the government committed to keeping him in prison for the rest of his life? As far as I can tell, the commuting of the sentence at 20 years is routine; in the New York Times story on this, the feeling among Israelis seems to be one of resignation that he would be freed after 20 years. One of the victims' parents even refers to him having "served his full sentence," so you're essentially advocating he serve extra time. Hence my insistence that there be an actual reason for keeping him in prison longer. I could even turn this argument around and ask if it would make sense to turn this murderer into a martyr, and increase his profile by keeping him in prison beyond the typical sentence.

It's not like they threw him a ticker-tape parade, either. The video of his return shows him being warmly welcomed home by friends and family and well-wishers from his village. Are they not supposed to be happy to see him? Is that the real outrage, that he didn't return to be put in a sack-cloth and covered in ashes?

 

[El_Machinae]

We might have different axioms. The rest of us are assuming that it's deliberately an early release.

 

[metalhead]

The Israeli press has obvious reasons for wanting it to be seen that way, just as they have obvious reasons for wanting us to believe he returned to a "hero's welcome," and for wanting us to believe he's a homicidal maniac who is going to go commit another similar crime.

It's likely no coincidence that everyone seems to have simply bought that narrative.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I tried getting information from Al Jazeera because I didn't trust the original source

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not sure what part of "he served 20 years in prison" you're not getting. What you're basically trying to advocate here is policing his thought - he must remain in prison because he's proud of this terrible thing that he did. You can't keep someone in prison on the argument they're a terrible person. That's just not how it works.

I believe the entire point of leniency is so that people who genuinely see their errors and try to change get a second opportunity.

Would he not have received that anyways? Would not the exact same argument apply unless the government committed to keeping him in prison for the rest of his life? As far as I can tell, the commuting of the sentence at 20 years is routine; in the New York Times story on this, and the feeling there one of resignation that he would be freed after 20 years. One of the victims' parents even refers to him having "served his full sentence," so you're essentially advocating he serve extra time. Hence my insistence that there be an actual reason for keeping him in prison longer.

Haaretz explicitly stated that Daqamseh avoided the death penalty by being found to have anti-social personality disorder. Also, I didn't realize Jordan had such a progressive justice system.

It's not like they threw him a ticker-tape parade, either. The video of his return shows him being warmly welcomed home by friends and family and well-wishers from his village. Are they not supposed to be happy to see him? Is that the real outrage, that he didn't return to be put in a sack-cloth and covered in ashes?

They released him during the night to minimize the celebrations. He has substantial support from the Islamist factions in the country, as claimed by a Jordanian journalist.

In other news, Jordan just refused to extradite a perpetrator of the Sbarro Massacre to the US.

The Israeli press has obvious reasons for wanting it to be seen that way, just as they have obvious reasons for wanting us to believe he returned to a "hero's welcome," and for wanting us to believe he's a homicidal maniac who is going to go commit another similar crime.

It's likely no coincidence that everyone seems to have simply bought that narrative.

So I assume they just made up all that stuff about the Jordanian parliament and justice minister?

Well, I tried getting information from Al Jazeera because I didn't trust the original source

You don't find the Israeli media reliable so you read Al Jazeera?

 

[Mise]

This entire discussion is precisely why the conditions for early release should take no account whatsoever of the prevailing political climate, political or public pressure, or public opinion. The conditions for early release should be solely based on the individual's behaviour in prison and likelihood of reoffending.

Anything else will simply raise precisely the questions and accusations that this thread has brought up.

 

[Mouthwash]

the individual's behaviour in prison

Neo-nazi shoots up a black church, goes to a prison where 98% of the people are white. He behaves very amiably.

Do we release him, assuming that he lives in a country with strict gun control?

 

[Mise]

The full sentence was: "The conditions for early release should be solely based on the individual's behaviour in prison and likelihood of reoffending." You cut it off half way through. His likelihood of reoffending is the crux of his early release.

So, to answer your question: "it depends on his likelihood of reoffending".

 

[Mouthwash]

The full sentence was: "The conditions for early release should be solely based on the individual's behaviour in prison and likelihood of reoffending." You cut it off half way through. His likelihood of reoffending is the crux of his early release.

I was really just focused on the behavior claim. But should we have also released people like Himmler or Eichmann, I wonder? There comes a point where someone's freedom and ability to live a normal life is offensive.

 

[Mise]

Again, we want to incentivise good behaviour, and punish bad behaviour. Inmates who behave badly in prison should serve longer terms than inmates who behave well. Good behaviour is a necessary but not sufficient condition of early release on parole.

The law applies equally to everyone. As I said to Perfection earlier in the thread, if you wish people like Himmler or Eichmann to serve longer sentences, then you should pass a law that punishes more harshly crimes of that nature. The law should be "if you commit genocide, you don't get early release". Laws like this do in fact exist.

 

[metalhead]

This entire discussion is precisely why the conditions for early release should take no account whatsoever of the prevailing political climate, political or public pressure, or public opinion. The conditions for early release should be solely based on the individual's behaviour in prison and likelihood of reoffending.

Anything else will simply raise precisely the questions and accusations that this thread has brought up.

I agree completely, although there is some dispute over whether this constitutes an "early release." The question I cannot find an answer to is whether the typical scenario is that someone with this type of sentence is released early unless it can be shown they are a high risk to re-offend or they didn't behave themselves in prison, or if they are released early only if it can be shown both that they behaved while in prison and are not any risk to re-offend.

It might seem like a small difference, but it's critical in determining whether the facts as we know it merely reflect business as usual, or justify some outrage that he was released after serving 20 years. It's equally outrageous to keep someone locked up who otherwise qualifies for release for political purposes, as it is to release someone early who might not otherwise deserve it for political purposes.

 

[Mise]

I don't know about Jordan, but there is absolutely no "default" to early release in the way that you describe. All early releases are conditional. What is "typical" may be that a "typical" inmate, after 20 years in prison, eventually repents, shows remorse, shows regret, and otherwise shows strong signs that they are no longer a substantial risk of reoffending. I would imagine that this is, in fact, what happens in prison. It would take a really screwed up maniac who, after 20 years, still shows no remorse or regret for stabbing to death 7 schoolchildren.

What you are describing, where there is some "default" case that a 25 year sentence is actually just a 20 year sentence + 5 years if you really suck, just isn't how the law works. To be released early, you have to satisfy early release conditions. If you don't satisfy those conditions, you aren't released. The burden of proof is on the inmate to show that they have satisfied the conditions of early release.

 

[metalhead]

I can only speak for how it works in the United States, but prisoners are routinely released early all the time, under the sole condition they behaved themselves while in prison. There isn't even any inquiry into whether they are rehabilitated; if your record is clean, you're free to go before you've served the full sentence. The state is only able to stop a release with compelling evidence that the prisoner poses an immediate risk to re-offend, and even then stopping the early release would be truly extraordinary and require evidence far beyond statements that the offender feels no remorse.

 

[El_Machinae]

You don't find the Israeli media reliable so you read Al Jazeera?

Not "israeli media", in general. I know nothing of the publication you linked. But I am assuming they're the equivalent of the Independent or whatever.

Maybe not 'assuming', but sharing the worry they are. When I googled, of the newservices I recognized, most were pro-inflammatory.

The question of whether this is a mandatory maximum in Jordan is essential to the discussion.

 

[Mise]

I can only speak for how it works in the United States, but prisoners are routinely released early all the time, under the sole condition they behaved themselves while in prison. There isn't even any inquiry into whether they are rehabilitated; if your record is clean, you're free to go before you've served the full sentence. The state is only able to stop a release with compelling evidence that the prisoner poses an immediate risk to re-offend, and even then stopping the early release would be truly extraordinary and require evidence far beyond statements that the offender feels no remorse.

This is almost certainly not the case for life sentences or serious, especially violent, crimes. I doubt this is the case at all in America, given its stance on parole in general, but its possible that some individual states have much more lenient rules than we do in Europe. They may get a reduced sentence for good behaviour, but this is substantially different from early release on parole. Early release will almost certainly require extensive interviews and a parole board hearing, wherein the burden of proof is squarely on the inmate.