Just tacking rehabilitation onto our existing system yields a hybridization of rehabilitation and punishment, where people are release either when they are reha

Just tacking rehabilitation onto our existing system yields a hybridization of rehabilitation and punishment, where people are release either when they are rehabilitated, or when we have determined that they are punished enough. Whichever happened first would trigger the release. This leaves us with a system that deliberately releases non-reformed criminals back into the public. Maybe that is better than our current system, but I think we should certainly aspire for better. > "Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct" While that is true, I would argue that not incapacitating somebody for exactly as long as is necessary is itself injustice. It means that we will knowingly be imprisoning people longer than is necessary (obviously abusive) and it means that we will be knowingly releasing non-reformed criminals back into the public (I consider this to be abusive to the public.) Incapacitation determined on individual basis is a precise tool, a very sharp knife. In the hands of an authoritarian regime, it could be very dangerous. But in the hands of a liberal lawful society, it allows the least harm possible for everybody involved. We could deny ourselves these tools, for fear of what could be done with them (and in the process, cause certain unnecessary harm). Or we could strive to be the very best that we can be, and give ourselves the tools necessary to achieve that.