>>I think many sentences are too short, but that isn't my point. My point is that if you get a 10 year sentence, serving 5 is not enough. You should have to serve 10. If you get a 5 year sentence, then you serve 5 years, not 1.5 year. If you get life, then you serve life.
>
>FWIW, at least here, most sentences are a range, not a specific length. So a 10-year sentence is normally 5 to 10 years. Usually, when you hear about someone being released on parole, they've served their minimum sentence.
>
>It seems to me that having a range of time for a sentence provides people with an incentive to behave in prison, and to work to improve themselves. If they know that taking classes or going to therapy or similar things will result in getting out sooner, they're more inclined to do it. If the sentence is a single exact length, what's the incentive?
>
>Tamar

Do we know the rate of recidivism? I'm not real concerned about someone who stole a loaf of bread, but I'm not convinced that because someone took classes or therapy, that they are going to become a better person necessarily. They're just as liable to fool the parole board. It happens too often for my liking. More than that, though, I'm concerned about people who look at the cost benefit of a criminal activity and say to themselves, "Well, the worst sentence I can get for this is 5 years, and I know therefore that I'll only do 2 years at most. Then it's worth doing the crime on the chance I'll get away with it altogether. If not, then I can handle 2 years."

There has to be some deterrent component to the system, and letting people out early does not help.

Nope, I'm afraid that as much of a liberal as I normally am, I believe that sentencing for crime has to mean something.