5 ms·
I agree, but that also depends on the offender. In a way, you could make an argument that prison should not have timed sentences, but rather that it should be
by SeoxyS 13y ago
I agree, but that also depends on the offender.
In a way, you could make an argument that prison should not have timed sentences, but rather that it should be "you stay until it is deemed that you will not offend again, and that you can be a productive member of society."
After all the word "corrections" implies that something should be corrected, not that somebody should be punished.
- jeffdavis 13y agoIt's partially deterrent and partially corrections. If it were only for corrections, then it would cause all kinds of problems. The most obvious one is that you get one "free crime" to commit. There's also a fairness (and rule-of-law) argument: if two people steal $100 each, why would one person be let out earlier?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago>There's also a fairness (and rule-of-law) argument: if two people steal $100 each, why would one person be let out earlier? If that's your justification then the horse has already left the barn, developed space travel and colonized Mars. Look at the number of factors that go into sentencing -- or just the definition of the crime, like what was stolen (distinct from its market value) and how (e.g. on a computer vs. in person vs. in a conspiracy with accomplices), then there is a lot of flexibility for the sentence itself (most sentences are "up to" X penalty) with a whole list of mitigating and exacerbating circumstances in the sentencing guidelines, subsequent parole for good behavior in prison, etc. etc.
- jeffdavis 13y agoI wasn't justifying anything. The person to whom I replied ignored a few obvious and valid arguments, and I was filling that void. Even if prison was entirely intended for corrections, it is punishment (a denial of freedom). So there is a fairness argument that if two people do reasonably similar crimes that they should get comparable sentences. That is just one argument though, and fairness (as always) is weighed against other arguments.
- sliverstorm 13y agoDo you really want prison times to be completely flexible? There is a lot of potential for abuse there.
- cheeseprocedure 13y agoI had this reaction too, but if an offender is given opportunities to become a more conscientious and educated human being through hard work, it seems reasonable that we would want them released (and contributing to society in a positive way) sooner rather than later.
- sliverstorm 13y agoThat already happens. "Released early for good behavior", early parole, etc.
- yoster 13y agoFederal time is different. It is day by day. Only way you can get time off of your sentence is by going through drug classes.
- gijjk 13y agoParole exists, which makes prison times extremely flexible, The exception is mandatory minimums, which are generally only for murder and for handling drugs that non-white/rich people tend to be disproportionately involved with.
- sliverstorm 13y agoI was thinking about maximum times, not minimums. There is no opposite of parole to extend their sentence, that I know of.