Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie Anne
But he would have had 16 years of fewer opportunities and victims.
|
I don't mean this in a dick way, but you missed his point entirely.
The point is more likely that if recidivism is such a problem, then locking them up for a mandatory 20 year sentence doesn't SOLVE that problem - in effect, a mandatory sentence is a cop out, because they'll still afterward. Regardless of whether you side with theories of prisons as rehabilitative devices or punitive devices, this mandatory sentence serves neither purpose effectively if the guy relapses afterward.
Viewed in that light, it becomes a quandary - do you lock everyone up for an extended and mandatory period of time, even though some won't perform the act again, and the ones who do won't be fixed (effectively solving nothing but literally "buying time")? Or do you leave it to the judicial system's authority, allowing a few egregious mistakes as noted in this thread?
The answer isn't mandatory sentencing, it's figuring out a better way to diagnose and classify defenders and prevent them from relapsing - and that way is NOT "living >2,000 feet from a church or school"
Threaded Mode
