> Giving more than (say) 20 years to most 20-year-old murderer is no different from 120, from either deterrence perspective. When they're 40 they'll be a differ

> Giving more than (say) 20 years to most 20-year-old murderer is no different from 120, from either deterrence perspective. When they're 40 they'll be a different person There was an interesting interview with Matt Cox (stole $55 million or so via mortgage fraud) where someone asked him what amount of prison time would have deterred him from re-offending (he got like 30 years originally). He said anything above 5 actual years in prison (so like 8 sentenced years) and he was never breaking the law in a major way again. That losing such a length of time was not worth any amount of money to him, essentially.