What should be the main factor in deciding jail sentences?

[valenzuela]

I think it should be harm caused, anyone disagrees?

[arahant]

If I had my way, it would be 'likely future harm caused'.
Maybe throw in some non-custodial corporal punishment for 'harm caused'

[keith123]

no. jail should be mainly used as a way to remove dangerous people from society. obviously they have to earn their way out, so recidivism should be a factor. i don't care if those guys on dateline never actually get to damage children's lives by molesting them. of course, if they actually did have sex with a child, they should have a worse punishment (but only because we don't know with 100% certainty what would have happened if there was actually a kid waiting for the dateline people).

harm is incidental, and should not be a great factor. potential harm certainly should be a great factor though.

[Skidoo]

The need of society to protect itself.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be harm caused, anyone disagrees?

[/ QUOTE ]The length of reform.

[51cards]

Imprisonment for a large % of life is cruel. It is also ineffective. The reason so many are in jail is because it's big business. The reason it continues is because we're used to it.

I'm not a total anarchist, but I think prison is way overused and there are better ways.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be harm caused, anyone disagrees?

[/ QUOTE ]The length of reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty pleased at the responses in this thread. I'm sort of surprised (pleasantly) that there aren't more champions of vengeance.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be harm caused, anyone disagrees?

[/ QUOTE ]The length of reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty pleased at the responses in this thread. I'm sort of surprised (pleasantly) that there aren't more champions of vengeance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting question. I think vengence actually has it's place, I just don't think a prison term is the best way to exact it, if only for cost. We don't want to be too barbaric, but for vengence, things like caning, cutting off fingers, public humiliation, etc would make much more sense.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be harm caused, anyone disagrees?

[/ QUOTE ]The length of reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty pleased at the responses in this thread. I'm sort of surprised (pleasantly) that there aren't more champions of vengeance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting question. I think vengence actually has it's place, I just don't think a prison term is the best way to exact it, if only for cost. We don't want to be too barbaric, but for vengence, things like caning, cutting off fingers, public humiliation, etc would make much more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just dont see it. I fail to see any serious, legitimate role for vengeance. I think the evidence is pretty strong that it does nothing to salve the pain for the majority of people. And its possible that for the ones it does, its really just taking pleasure in ANYONE's suffering that makes them feel better.

I don't mind punishment, but I think deterrence and protection are the only two legitimate reasons for it. If locking them up serves as a useful deterrrent, fine, if its necessary to prevent a repeat offense, fine. If neither of those conditions are met, its pointless and an exercise in barbarism.

This is not to say I don't GET vengeance. I get it. People like to hurt other people, especially other people they have dehumanized. People like violence. I just don't think its a legitimate role of the legal/penal system. At that point, its simply allowing people to cause pain on a set group of people because we have deemed them to be less human.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be harm caused, anyone disagrees?

[/ QUOTE ]The length of reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty pleased at the responses in this thread. I'm sort of surprised (pleasantly) that there aren't more champions of vengeance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting question. I think vengence actually has it's place, I just don't think a prison term is the best way to exact it, if only for cost. We don't want to be too barbaric, but for vengence, things like caning, cutting off fingers, public humiliation, etc would make much more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just dont see it. I fail to see any serious, legitimate role for vengeance. I think the evidence is pretty strong that it does nothing to salve the pain for the majority of people. And its possible that for the ones it does, its really just taking pleasure in ANYONE's suffering that makes them feel better.

I don't mind punishment, but I think deterrence and protection are the only two legitimate reasons for it. If locking them up serves as a useful deterrrent, fine, if its necessary to prevent a repeat offense, fine. If neither of those conditions are met, its pointless and an exercise in barbarism.

This is not to say I don't GET vengeance. I get it. People like to hurt other people, especially other people they have dehumanized. People like violence. I just don't think its a legitimate role of the legal/penal system. At that point, its simply allowing people to cause pain on a set group of people because we have deemed them to be less human.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was a little broad...I think non-custodial punishments MIGHT serve as a deterrent at a lower cost to society.

Also, I actually think that the state running the vengence racket is necessary to cut down on personal vengence. If someone does something terrible but receives no punishment, we would see a lot more vigilantism.

Actually, that just boils down to the fact that from an evolutionary perspective, the human desire for 'vengence' IS the deterrent to anti-social behavior.

[Yo_Respek]

Race

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Race

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha?

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Race

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it should be harm caused, anyone disagrees?

[/ QUOTE ]

As other commenters have mentioned, sentences aren't supposed to be wholly punitive.

Leaving that aside though, if you make harm caused the main factor, you're going to end up giving the same sentence to a normally law-abiding drunk driver who hits and kills someone as to some guy who kidnaps a woman off the street and hacks her to pieces in his basement. That doesn't seem very just to me.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had my way, it would be 'likely future harm caused'.
Maybe throw in some non-custodial corporal punishment for 'harm caused'

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to think corporal punishment would be a good idea - I'm definitely all for keeping prison sentences as low as possible. The problem is that to make it an effective deterrent, you would probably need quite vicious punishments. Then we have the problem of who administers those punishments, as well as the distress it causes to friends and family of the criminal. Such a punishment would also be wholly punitive, with no possibility of it effecting the rehabilitation of the offender.

For minor crimes, a better option is enforced labor of some kind - or "community service" as it gets called. This is a lot more constructive and potentially creates wealth, rather than destroying it as prison does.

Of course, I live in Australia where we don't have quite so batshit insane a justice system as you do in the US (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita). To decrease prison population in your country, you might consider not locking people up for taking drugs (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences) and instead spending that 50 billion (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm) on something useful.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I had my way, it would be 'likely future harm caused'.
Maybe throw in some non-custodial corporal punishment for 'harm caused'

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to think corporal punishment would be a good idea - I'm definitely all for keeping prison sentences as low as possible. The problem is that to make it an effective deterrent, you would probably need quite vicious punishments. Then we have the problem of who administers those punishments, as well as the distress it causes to friends and family of the criminal. Such a punishment would also be wholly punitive, with no possibility of it effecting the rehabilitation of the offender.

For minor crimes, a better option is enforced labor of some kind - or "community service" as it gets called. This is a lot more constructive and potentially creates wealth, rather than destroying it as prison does.

Of course, I live in Australia where we don't have quite so batshit insane a justice system as you do in the US (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita). To decrease prison population in your country, you might consider not locking people up for taking drugs (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences) and instead spending that 50 billion (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm) on something useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doh...community service...much better idea.
I'll run your ideas about not locking up massive numbers of drug offenders past my president.

On second thought, I don't think I'll waste my time.

We definitely have some [censored] up stuff going on here, but I'm hopeful that in 100 years it will be better. Despite the lead weight that is the South, we are moving in the right direction.

[Nielsio]

Jailing is evil.