4 ms·

I honestly don't see the point in any prison sentences more than 5 years but less than life. There are many people who have done terrible things and deserve to

by habosa 14y ago

I honestly don't see the point in any prison sentences more than 5 years but less than life. There are many people who have done terrible things and deserve to be in prison forever, and for them I understand a life sentence. For everyone else, when is 5 years not enough? 5 years is a very, very long time and if we actually made an effort to rehabilitate you could teach a person a ton in 5 years. I think that for 90% of crimes criminals should be locked up for no more than 5 years and then placed on probation with mandatory psychological evaluation after that. If they are well-behaved and pass basic psychological tests, they have likely learned their lesson. The only reason I can see for longer non-life sentences is for people who serve multiple years and then become repeat offenders, they may lack the ability to be rehabilitated in a reasonable amount of time.

monochromatic 14y ago
It's not just rehabilitation. It's also deterrence.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  How much deterrence do you think longer sentences than that actually provide? Nobody is typically going to commit a crime if they think it will put them in prison for five years. The people who do are just expecting not to be caught. A longer sentence can hardly deter someone who doesn't expect to serve it. It's also worth pointing out that the general public has utterly no idea what the prison sentences are for specific crimes. How can you deter anyone with no knowledge of the deterrent?
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    The general public isn't out committing these crimes. Do criminals (and potential criminals) know what sentences are like? I'm not sure, but I'd guess they'd more likely to than people in general.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      I kind of doubt it. Most street thugs are not about to call up a lawyer and inquire about the penalties imposed on the crimes they intend to commit -- or about anything at all for that matter, because street thugs don't generally have "hiring a lawyer ahead of time" money. Potentially the ones in gangs will know from personal experience or the experience of their compatriots, but then you're right back into not expecting to be caught territory -- or else how can you explain the lack of deterrent effectiveness in reality? I mean just look at the evidence: Has increasing the penalties on drug crimes to insane levels deterred the bulk of the drug dealers from continuing to deal drugs? Obviously not.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    Being in prison deters them from committing more crimes outside prison.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      That's not deterrence.
      - ctdonath 14y ago
        "You can't get there, and we'll shoot you if you try" is.
- habosa 14y ago
  I think anyone who is not deterred by 5 years time is either in one of two categories: 1) About to commit an incredibly serious crime, in which case they'll probably get life. 2) Mentally unfit to participate in society, in which case they'll probably fail the psychological evaluations I've mentioned. I'm not saying I have a perfect plan, it's just something I think is the right step towards improvement.
- intended 14y ago
  A long time ago now, Slashdot had a discussion on the death penalty and the deterrence argument was being tossed around. A cop spoke up and the essence of his point was: The punishment doesn't matter, as much as the sure knowledge that you will be caught.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    Well if some random cop said it, it must be true. Also, how do we make sure people know they're going to get caught? This is comparing something we can control (sentencing) to something we can't (absolute certainty of catching every criminal).
    - intended 14y ago
      Like all management, just because you can control and measure something (sentencing) doesn't mean it will help you achieve your goal (lower crime). Think of it in terms of the broken window effect - if people (all subsections of soceity) know that they are very likely to be caught, then they are very unlikely to commit a crime no matter what the punishment. Only un-meditated crimes would likely slip through the gap. Also if a cop says it, it may mean nothing, but then when coders say different things, it would mean equally little would it not? At least the cop has real world experience. That said I'll see if I can find some studies to back it up.
kamaal 14y ago
>>5 years is a very, very long time and if we actually made an effort to rehabilitate you could teach a person a ton in 5 years. Rehabilitation and reformation is a two way traffic and for that two way traffic to work a lot has to click at once. Frankly speaking a lot of people can be reformed, especially the poor ones or people coming from poor families. Or people who commit crime in a impulse or fit of sudden rage(Who as a matter of fact are not criminals at all). For such people a term called 'justice to the victim' mandates a certain term of 'punishment'. I think the same term must be used to rehabilitate and reform the person. Now the problem is something like this. The prisoner needs to be convinced that he can make a living out of every day work. Which is difficult- you have to go and out and really find a way a prisoner can achieve that, then the prisoner has to be himself willing to undergo a change to get into the new world. This is a ideal scenario. Jail reforms were a thing here in India. To take small time thieves and other petty offenders and reform them so that they could re enter the society was taken. But taking into consideration the trauma of being in a jail, then to be treated like animals and forced to live in sub human conditions. To be in false hope of getting released/out on bail. Then to carry the stigma of society always considering you a criminal and prison inmate at a time. A person will get little time to think about reform and rehabilitation. What a person in that state would go through total devastation, or at most a emotion of relief if he can get to divorce his wife, let them free to live without the burden of being known as attached to a family of a criminal. Hope that his kids can somehow make it through well in the real world. Or worse after spending so much time in the prison a person might get institutionalized to the prison.

by habosa 14y ago

monochromatic 14y ago

It's not just rehabilitation. It's also deterrence.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
How much deterrence do you think longer sentences than that actually provide? Nobody is typically going to commit a crime if they think it will put them in prison for five years. The people who do are just expecting not to be caught. A longer sentence can hardly deter someone who doesn't expect to serve it. It's also worth pointing out that the general public has utterly no idea what the prison sentences are for specific crimes. How can you deter anyone with no knowledge of the deterrent?
- monochromatic 14y ago
  The general public isn't out committing these crimes. Do criminals (and potential criminals) know what sentences are like? I'm not sure, but I'd guess they'd more likely to than people in general.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    I kind of doubt it. Most street thugs are not about to call up a lawyer and inquire about the penalties imposed on the crimes they intend to commit -- or about anything at all for that matter, because street thugs don't generally have "hiring a lawyer ahead of time" money. Potentially the ones in gangs will know from personal experience or the experience of their compatriots, but then you're right back into not expecting to be caught territory -- or else how can you explain the lack of deterrent effectiveness in reality? I mean just look at the evidence: Has increasing the penalties on drug crimes to insane levels deterred the bulk of the drug dealers from continuing to deal drugs? Obviously not.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  Being in prison deters them from committing more crimes outside prison.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    That's not deterrence.
    - ctdonath 14y ago
      "You can't get there, and we'll shoot you if you try" is.
habosa 14y ago
I think anyone who is not deterred by 5 years time is either in one of two categories: 1) About to commit an incredibly serious crime, in which case they'll probably get life. 2) Mentally unfit to participate in society, in which case they'll probably fail the psychological evaluations I've mentioned. I'm not saying I have a perfect plan, it's just something I think is the right step towards improvement.
intended 14y ago
A long time ago now, Slashdot had a discussion on the death penalty and the deterrence argument was being tossed around. A cop spoke up and the essence of his point was: The punishment doesn't matter, as much as the sure knowledge that you will be caught.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Well if some random cop said it, it must be true. Also, how do we make sure people know they're going to get caught? This is comparing something we can control (sentencing) to something we can't (absolute certainty of catching every criminal).
  - intended 14y ago
    Like all management, just because you can control and measure something (sentencing) doesn't mean it will help you achieve your goal (lower crime). Think of it in terms of the broken window effect - if people (all subsections of soceity) know that they are very likely to be caught, then they are very unlikely to commit a crime no matter what the punishment. Only un-meditated crimes would likely slip through the gap. Also if a cop says it, it may mean nothing, but then when coders say different things, it would mean equally little would it not? At least the cop has real world experience. That said I'll see if I can find some studies to back it up.

kamaal 14y ago

>>5 years is a very, very long time and if we actually made an effort to rehabilitate you could teach a person a ton in 5 years. Rehabilitation and reformation is a two way traffic and for that two way traffic to work a lot has to click at once. Frankly speaking a lot of people can be reformed, especially the poor ones or people coming from poor families. Or people who commit crime in a impulse or fit of sudden rage(Who as a matter of fact are not criminals at all). For such people a term called 'justice to the victim' mandates a certain term of 'punishment'. I think the same term must be used to rehabilitate and reform the person. Now the problem is something like this. The prisoner needs to be convinced that he can make a living out of every day work. Which is difficult- you have to go and out and really find a way a prisoner can achieve that, then the prisoner has to be himself willing to undergo a change to get into the new world. This is a ideal scenario. Jail reforms were a thing here in India. To take small time thieves and other petty offenders and reform them so that they could re enter the society was taken. But taking into consideration the trauma of being in a jail, then to be treated like animals and forced to live in sub human conditions. To be in false hope of getting released/out on bail. Then to carry the stigma of society always considering you a criminal and prison inmate at a time. A person will get little time to think about reform and rehabilitation. What a person in that state would go through total devastation, or at most a emotion of relief if he can get to divorce his wife, let them free to live without the burden of being known as attached to a family of a criminal. Hope that his kids can somehow make it through well in the real world. Or worse after spending so much time in the prison a person might get institutionalized to the prison.