If there is sufficient real (not circumstantial evidence) e.g. DNA + Witness + CCTV etc. to prove a violent crime was committed be it rape, murder then kill them in the same manner or by chopping the offending bits off, or something that would provide sufficient torture so they new they did wrong before dying, why burden tax payers if there can be absolutely no question of doubt. Where doubt may exist life should mean life in a dark hole with no comforts, then if new evidence comes to light they can appeal, but if they appeal and fail then kill ‘em.
For theft, fraud and other serious non violent crimes life should mean life, but they should have to do some manual work in order to pay their way in prison and reimburse those they stole from or the insurance company, if they won't work (whatever it may be) they starve.
If there is sufficient real (not circumstantial evidence) e.g. DNA + Witness + CCTV etc. to prove a violent crime was committed be it rape, murder then kill them in the same manner or by chopping the offending bits off, or something that would provide sufficient torture so they new they did wrong before dying, why burden tax payers if there can be absolutely no question of doubt. Where doubt may exist life should mean life in a dark hole with no comforts, then if new evidence comes to light they can appeal, but if they appeal and fail then kill ‘em.
For theft, fraud and other serious non violent crimes life should mean life, but they should have to do some manual work in order to pay their way in prison and reimburse those they stole from or the insurance company, if they won't work (whatever it may be) they starve.