Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
I agree with where you're coming from here, but honestly I'd rather let the parole system evaluate his likelihood of reoffending rather than a judge today speculating where this guy's head is going to be at in a decade. The problem with terms of this length is that they leave no flexibility for the parole system to keep him in longer than the nine years. Too often, we have a parole system saying that a criminal is likely to reoffend, but they have no option to keep him in as the sentence has expired. If our system is really about rehabilitation, we should have longer initial sentences and a better-structured parole system.
|
For the record I did agree that nine years wasn't enough, I was just arguing against the whole 'lock em up and throw away the key' argument.
I just think there might be better ways to satisfy the plight of the victim, keep society safe, prevent and discourage future crimes from others, and rehab the criminal than crying out that our system is a joke and doesn't lock up people long enough. Yes don't have a ton of ideas (mostly cause they very so much from crime to crime) but at least there's probably more imagination, thought, and heart than, 'lock em up till he rots'.
Your idea does have some merit though. Stiffer sentences with more opportunity for parole (within the framework of a system that evaluates and rehabs better than it does now).
I like it. Could be a start.