There just seems to be a bright line in here between the posters who believe the criminal justice system should primarily be a punishment mechanism and those who think rehabilitation of offenders and their subsequent reincorporation into society as the primary goal of that system.
If you're in the former camp, how much jail time is enough punishment for a particular crime seems to be really subjective and is obviously uninformed in nearly all cases - is ten years enough for this crime? How do you know? How do you know what ten years in prison is like, as opposed to two, having never been incarcerated yourself? And why not nine, or eleven?
If you're in the latter camp, long sentences are actually counterproductive, particularly for someone who's 20 years old. If our ultimate goal is for the convicted kid to be able to live a productive life after he's released, it seems like leaving him in jail for too long will actually make that outcome far less likely, both in terms of his development and the likelihood for recidivism as a result of just the culture that would have become ingrained in him by spending age 20-25 (for example) behind bars.
I don't think that punishment and rehabilitation are incompatible, in fact I think some amount of punishment is crucial to rehabilitation as a deterrent. But it also seems like there is a point where it's not just diminishing returns but actively counterproductive.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|