>>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

I know I responded to this already, but I was thinking about it, and I got to wondering why we need to bribe criminals to better themselves with shorter sentences. Why isn't not going back to jail after they get out enough of an incentive? Why isn't just moving out of a life of crime enough of an incentive to take classes etc in prison? If these aren't enough incentive to better themselves, then I'm not all that clear on why shorter sentences will be the answer. And remember, I'm not talking about murder and a life sentence. I've already said how I feel about that.