I am not saying the idea is perfect as it is. It definitely needs to be "tweaked and peaked" so to speak. Arguments could be made as to sending all current lifers straight to an island, but arguments could also be made towards keeping them where they are and simply sending all new lifers to the island. Me personally, I would say start with the new lifers, making sure the judges who sentenced for life were ones who would not sentence thus, unless there was absolutely no question as to a persons guilt first. We simply have way too many innocent people who were int he wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak, in prison for life right now.
e could restructure the current prisons, over time to incorporate the non-lifers, and give them a place to work while still remaining confined for the duration of their sentence; as one example. We would still need the guards and such, their roles would just shift a bit towards secure prisons, instead of maximum security, so to speak.

The guilt is decided by the jury, not the judge, the judge only hands down the sentence...

Yea in that perfect place called Never-Never Land with Peter Pan!

As I said, the JUDGE has to be able to decide NOT to send someone to prison for life, instead of automatically sending them.

The sentence is already decided based on the verdict of the jury... 1st degree murder either gets life or death... there's not much else the judge can do... Do you think that judges just arbitrarily pass out sentences? They have standards they have to adhear to.

I undertand this. But again, the judge has the legal capability of reducing a conviction if they feel it is necessary. For example, say you or I were found guilty of 1st degree murder by a jury. The judge can reduce that charge to say second degree manslaughter. No it does not happen very often, but it is possible if the judge feels there is enough reason to doubt that it was premeditated.
And this scenario is the defining decision between life imprisonment and parole possibilities.
The judge is also capable of dismissing the jury altogether and handing down a verdict of their own, although again it rarely happens.

that is called an appeal, and it happens AFTER the initial trial, a judge can not change what a jury finds...

So to appeal is to have a new trial, a plea bargin happens before the trial ends. and if you know you are going to be sent to a island, how many are not going to plea guilty and NOT waste the tax payers money on a trial, ALL INDITMENTS WILL GO TO TRIAL AT THAT POINT.

Besides the fact that a MAJOR vote has to take place to make this happen, and really I don't see people voting to make prisoners cast aways.

Daniel if you are going to argue law, please read up on it first.

Lily, please go back to school or at least do some home study. Judges do have the legal capability of diminishing a charge, and dismissing a jury if they feel the need is there.
Again, it is rarely done. But then again, in most places it is still illegal to have sex in any way other than missionary style, with your legal spouse and in your marriage bed. yet do you see people being charged with any crimes for not obeying this law? Of course not. A judge does have these capabilities, just as a cop has the capability of arresting you if you go out and state (admit) you had anal sex with your significant other (in most places). Does this mean they act on those capabilities? No it doesn't. But it does not change the fact that they are stillc apable of doing so.

That's how Australia was settled.