Would you keep Sandusky alive to serve all 400+ years?

Assuming technology existed where you can keep him alive, at no greater cost than maintaining a standard child-abuse convicted inmate, for all the 400+ years of the combined lengths of his sentences, would you?

Would that constitute cruel and unusual punishment? When would he be eligible for parole if he were able to serve all 400 years?

That’s the OP… take it from there. :slight_smile:

Prison wouldn’t nearly be the punishment he deserves.
I don’t believe in Hell, but if there’s one, he can go there ASAP.
And I wouldn’t spend a dollar more of anyone’s money than I had to to keep him alive. Would rather he just didn’t even make it through his first year.

Why? Imagine the cost of feeding, housing and guarding him all those years, not to mention the cost of whatever medical procedures were needed to keep him alive all that time. The money could be better spent helping abused children. Let him live out his normal life span in the slammer. If he kills himself early, so be it.

Why don’t his legal team appeal on the basis that, if technology ever does become available so that he can serve 400 years, the sentence would be manifestly excessive?

No. The sooner he’s removed from this planet the better.

I would allow/encourage suicide.

No, don’t see the point. And how is he different in this situation from any “garden variety” molester? I don’t want them around. Is it because he is high-profile, and a member of America’s Official Religion? Just forget him until he dies. No interviews, no attention. And although I might feel differently if I were one of his victims, I try not to believe in a retributive prison policy. He’s there as punishment sure, and also to keep him away from young boys.

The cost would be a factor, but it’s not like he’d put a much greater load on the system than the many, many new or recidivist prisoners each year.

If the technology to grant longevity existed, I’d want everyone to have access to it. I wouldn’t withhold it from prisoners for the sake of vengeance.

No - there’s no point.

Definitely. So, I answered no.

I do not believe in any type of afterlife for us feeble humans whatsoever. Mainly why I voted YES. If living like that we’re possible for sick criminals, it’d be interesting to read the books from guards, shrinks, etc. Like, “Sandusky Reflects On His First 200 Years”, written by great grandson of defense lawyer Andola. :smiley:

Thank you; this is my opinion too.

Only if I don’t have to clean his cage.

It would be a waste of money to keep a prisoner alive for the sake of serving out a sentence that’s longer than the prisoner’s natural lifetime.

Just reading the thread title made me think of the last years of Richard Speck, and now I have to wash out my brain :(.

I voted no. I can’t see that it would benefit anybody involved.

Excessive? I think he got off easy.

It’s a silly premise, but I’ll take it seriously.

Assuming I had the magical power to make someone live longer, I’d use it to help out some terminally ill child- not to keep a rat alive.

If Sandusky lives out just 5 more years, and spends them all in jail, I won’t lose a moment’s sleep fretting that he wasn’t incarcerated long enough.

Assuming, of course, that this wouldn’t just be applied to him, of course. To not save someone’s life when you can is to kill them. And I no longer believe in capital punishment.

Though my usual dislike for suicide goes out the window in this case.