Uh, didn't I say that I was totally okay with throwing out the "rehabilitation" argument? I thought I had at least implied it. Sorry I wasn't explicit enough.
Prison can be a place of healing, but you're right, that is not it's primary purpose. It's a place of punishment, and I think it's fine for people to stay there forever with no possibility of parole, if their crime warrants it. Put them in prison, lock them up and be done with it. If they want to find peace, they're more than welcome to try and find it.
If no one can be satisfied about rehabilitation, fine - keep them in prison. I don't think I tried to glorify rehabilitation as a sure thing, or that we should always trust in the idea of it. Sometimes it's not possible. Maybe even in most cases it's not possible. I'm not all that pushed to find out. Rehabilitaion for violent criminals is a personal thing, not something really for the courts to decide on, in the types of cases we're talking about. I don't know that anyone can be rehabilitated of the desire to kill, rape, or molest. I like to think so, but I certainly don't know, and am certainly not saying we should not kill them in hopes they'll be rehabilitated. They're two separate issues. I have a personal hope that a person could rid him or herself of violent urges and desires and be able to control their anger and vent it in a constructive manner, but I don't take that to the level of saying, "well, let's give him 50 years, but if we think he's been rehabilitated, we'll let him out in 15."
I'm in favor of giving reasonable sentences that are stuck to. I don't like this stuff of giving someone 50 years for burglary just because they know the person will get out in 5 years. If you want someone to serve 5 years, give them 5 years. If you want them to serve 50, give them 50. If you want them to serve out their lives, say so. But this sentence exaggeration in order to make up for the parole system has got to stop. Likewise, sentence reduction through parole for violent criminal has got to stop. Give the prison sentence appropriate for the crime, and forget parole. I think I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with giving someone more years than their crime warrants in order to make up for parole, then deciding they should serve the sentence they really didn't warrant in the first place, though, which is why I'm against three strikes as it stands. Reform the sentencing system, and I might go for it.
But to reiterate, as much as I have a hope in a person's rehabilitation, I don't think that should be a criterion for how much (or little) of their sentence they serve. Hope that's more clear.