> Keeping him away from law-abiding citizens for two decades was accomplished. >Don't get me wrong. It is a sad story. And I sympathize with someone who didn't

> Keeping him away from law-abiding citizens for two decades was accomplished. >Don't get me wrong. It is a sad story. And I sympathize with someone who didn't see a better way for himself than crack dealing but what about all those other people, the society at large, who don't want to be afraid to walk after dark, don't want their property vandalized...? What makes 20 years the magic number after which Harris could be safely returned to live among law-abiding citizens? A key point of the article is that we're keeping people locked up long after they become unlikely to commit more crimes. It's not saying that lawbreakers shouldn't be incarcerated at all. You also have to consider unintended consequences of long incarceration, such as the effect it has on children, and the fact that it perpetuates the cycle of poverty that led Harris to crack dealing in the first place. Other western countries deter crime and protect the public with far shorter sentences. Why wouldn't that work here too?