When it's completely irrelevant to the point being made. You and Guyser know very well what is being argued for - that people who are irredeemably dangerous to the public should be locked up permanently. Doggedly insisting that a life sentence is still a life sentence even when the criminal is walking the streets is pointless.
Locking people up permanently is dangerous to the public as well. For every one person sitting in jail, about 8 people have to work full time and pay taxes, and thats assuming all of what they pay went to that one persons incarceration.
I dont wanna pay any more money for this. I think our system as is, is acceptable. Not perfect, but it appears to either be comparable to, or outperform our peers.
Anyhow if you want to appeal to anyone besides fellow knee-jerkers youre going to make a rational case for reform. Does this type of thing happen enough to warrant massive reforms, and massive new spending? Is it increasing in frequency, or declining? Have other countries that wrote laws around this philosophy had success with it? Are their systems statistically better than ours?
It sounds to me like what you want is similar to the "three strikes youre out" and mandatory minimum sentences that they have in the US, which have been a massive objective failure and bankrupted states and municipalities. Some of them are considering wholesale prisoner releases because theres just no money to pay for it.
