Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Agreed that the priority should be protecting the public, not punishment or retribution. With that in mind, we know violent crime is overwhelmingly carried out by men in their 20s and 30s, and drops off steeply after 40. So it shouldn’t be necessary to lock up violent 30 year olds for 25 years to make the public safe. We should also recognize that declines in violence we attribute to rehabilitation may instead simply be a consequence of aging.
|
while to some level I would agree I suspect that one of the effects of long term incarceration would make older offenders more prone to violence, when criminals hit their thirties they generally use the connections and skills they have on the outside to find some other lifestyle, if you lock them up from 18 to 35 they hit the streets with absolutely no skills or community connections, utterly institutionalised in hopeless violent jails full of guys with no reason to modify their behaviour as they aint getting out no matter what they do, it is pretty much a perfect breeding ground for violent 35 and 40 year olds