|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 21, 2009 14:35:07 GMT
I wonder what a judge really thinks when he sentences some toerag to (say) 5 years in prison. Does he say to himself "that crime fully warranted a sentence of 5 years, so I have upheld law and order by imposing it". Or does he say, "the sentencing guidelines only allow me to hand down a 5 year stretch; but in effect he will be eligible for parole after about 2 years, and he will be released after 2.5 years. Why the hell do I bother?"
I wonder what the toerag really thinks when he gets a sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Does he say to himself, "5 years!! Hmmm, I really must give up this crime lark." Or does he say to himself, "5 years eh? I can be out on parole in 2, and I will be released after doing half the stretch. No big deal."
When did we start releasing prisoners after serving only half their sentence. Surely, a judge passes the sentence which in his learned opinion fits the crime, so why do we in effect over-rule him, and half the sentence? And why do we do it in any case? If, as the argument sometimes goes, it is to encourage good behaviour while in prison, there are other means to ensure that end without using such a soft option as halving the sentence.
Why not, for example, allow the judge to impose both a minimum AND a maximum period of imprisonment. In the above example, he would have passed a sentence of (say) 5 to 7 years. In other words, chummy will serve the sentence the judge thinks fits the crime, and if he behaves, he will be released after 5 years. But if he misbehaves, then the prison governor can extend his sentence up to a maximum of an additional 2 years.
The present system is, IMHO, a nonsense. It over-rides the judges decision, and surely, the sentence the judge imposes reflects both the crime and the character of the criminal. In other words, it fits the bill. It is seen as a soft option by the criminal, AND by the public at large, it lessens the deterrent effect, and it reduces to an unnecessary degree the punishment element of the sentence. It is a charade. Why do we tolerate it?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 21, 2009 14:48:23 GMT
Ben, you've touched on a subject very dear to my heart.
It is crazy that some people get long sentences for non-violent offences and yet somebody who commits GBH or murder can be out in the blink of an eye.
I think the judges vary in their attitude to sentencing. Some of them really are complete loopers who know the law but nothing about life. They hand out cautions like parking tickets and seem very reluctant to crack down on offenders.
Others find that their hands are tied. We often hear a judge say, 'I wish I could hand down a stiffer sentence for this crime.'
The randomness of sentencing is also crazy. I agree with you, Ben, that a maximum and minimum sentence tariff on a sliding scale is a good idea.
On the other hand, as someone who visits prisoners and supports alternatives to prison where possible (I work with young offenders and young adults), I have to tell you that if you don't give a prisoner hope they are more likely to reoffend.
I'm a curious mixture, Ben. I support the death penalty and also corporal punishment for crimes of violence, yet I visit prisoners and believe in alternatives to prison where possible.
It all depends on the crime. It's not right to hand out a slap on the wrist for crimes of violence but many offenders are in prison for quite minor offences where probation might be a better solution.
The whole idea of a minimum sentence is that the prisoner's crime is so bad that he or she deserves to spend at least that length of time in prison.
If you don't give inmates any hope of release then they are effectively being given no kind of incentive to behave while they are inside and are more likely to reoffend on release.
As a fellow-pro on another board said last night, 'the death penalty and LWOP are both sentences of death.'
|
|