I've thought a lot about the different issues in criminal justice, and have sort of settled on the opinion that a good starting point is to 1) determine the minimum punishment that would be needed to protect people from serious ham, 2) determine the minimum punishment that would be needed for society at large to feel like "justice has been served", and then 3) impose whichever of those two is greater. It's not always perfect but I think it gets close. #1 is determined by things like recidivism rates, risk factors, personal history and the like, and #2 is sort of based on history and is set by the legislature in the form of sentencing guidelines and such.
Under that theory, I agree that the individual circumstances of a particular rape, or any crime, are very important. In the US, a certain subcategory of rapists, those classified as "sexually violent predators," are, after their jail term, involuntarily committed to an institution where they're evaluated every year or so to determine if they'd be a threat. Many never get out. Still, they have the chance.
Under that theory, I agree that the individual circumstances of a particular rape, or any crime, are very important. In the US, a certain subcategory of rapists, those classified as "sexually violent predators," are, after their jail term, involuntarily committed to an institution where they're evaluated every year or so to determine if they'd be a threat. Many never get out. Still, they have the chance.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
