Sean Jones KCAdded to that is a tendency to simplism when it comes to aims. This is particularly true where deterrence is concerned. It is widely believed that if sentences can just become draconian enough, there will be a tipping point and crime will evaporate /4
Simplism fed by politicians eager for votes and newspapers eager to outrage, operating in a context where few hear about actual sentencing practice, creates a ratchet: sentences are always insufficient in the public mind; they must always go up /5
What profit is there for a politician in ever suggesting that a sentencing guideline is fair (let alone too harsh)? Who will ever voluntarily stand in the way of the ratchet? The unasked question is this: If sentences keep getting “tougher” indefinitely, where do we end up?
Gareth Potter@SeanJones America.
SamuelJohnson@SeanJones The best argument I've seen for a different approach was a documentary on how Finland rehabilitates children who kill. Shown at a time when British lynch mobs wanted to deal w the killers of Jamie Bulger. It was eye-opening, convincing, and should, imo, be mandatory viewing in both retributionist circles and in those looking for reforms. I suspect Finish approach is demonstrably better across the board.