3 ms·
It'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 yo
by jeffdavis 14y ago
It'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 14y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 14y 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 14y 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.