ASLplease ASLplease:
I propose that getting tough on crime means that we need to take the determiniation of manditory sentencing out of the hands of politically motivated people.
I propose that we titrate the manditory sentencing with an automated formula that is designed to seek a minimum rate of reoffending.
With such a system, any factors like Failed rehabilitation would have an impact on the sentencing of future criminals.
What do you guys think? Is this a good start?
It depends on the crime and the goals of sentencing. Most of the research I've read concludes that nothing good comes from over-incarcerting. I'm all for mandatory sentencing, on the grounds of 'segregation', for many violent crimes. For rehabilitation reasons, however, I think sentencing restraint is often a better course of action. I like the fact that judges have some leeway. Each case is different and minimum sentences create round holes for square pegs.
That said, there are some crimes that I think should come with automatic life-sentences on conviction. No parole. Ever. Murder, child-sex crimes and crimes committed with a firearm would fall in that category.
I also believe in minimum sentences for repeat offenders. There are lots of armed robbers, for example, who were dumb kids that made a mistake. Even though this is a very violent crime, many can be re-habilitated and become productive citizens. But if a guy repeats the crime, thereby proving that his first time in prison didn't result in rehabilitation, then fuck him. Life sentence, no parole. I like "Two strikes and you're out" as a rule for just about any violent crime, the exceptions being the ones where the "One strike and you're out" rule applies.
