I think it's like so many things that involve politicians: the pendulum seems to swing to far to either side.
In 1981, murderers served about a third of their sentences — roughly 3 ½ years, on average — before they were paroled or had their sentences commuted.
If that's not a typo, it is astonishing to me. Release after less than 4 years for murder? In our society most people don't murder other people and that amount of time doesn't send the message that it's a seriously unacceptable thing to do.
So of course people were outraged by that sort of thing and now the pendulum has swung to the "life means life" and there is little to no consideration of prior record, behavior while incarcerated, or possible other extenuating circumstances.
Rather than parole, I guess I'd rather see more "reasonable" (try to get people to agree on that, though) sentences in the first place, with add-on time for bad behavior, rather than long sentences and a parole system. The whole concept of parole, and the administration and expense of implementing it, seems unnecessary. Sentence people based on the crime of which they are convicted, and take into account their past criminal history. If they misbehave in prison, add time. If they offend again after release, sentence more harshly. Why do we need parole?
> Sentence people based on the crime of which they are convicted, and take into account their past criminal history. If they misbehave in prison, add time.
That's essentially what we do in most states. The federal sentencing guidelines, for example, are a grid indexed by crime, criminal history, and aggravating factors.[1] Good time credit allows prisoners to work off 15% of their sentence.
And the net result of that has been inhumanly high sentences. Because voters thinking about situations in the abstract are much more comfortable with 5 and 10 year mandatory minimums, with 10 to 20 year mandatory minimums for repeat offenders, than judges and parole boards that have to look human beings in the eye.
[1] E.g. here is the federal sentencing guideline for robbery: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2011-2b31; here is the sentencing table: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manua.... Consider robbery with a gun, but nobody hurt, $15,000 taken. Base offense level of 20, +6 for gun, +1 for amount taken = 27. With no prior criminal history, you get a sentencing range of 6-7 years. Someone with a string of offenses can easily get up to 10 years.
In Norway, second degree (heat of passion) murder apparently gets you six years.
Ten years is (if he's extremely lucky) a tenth of a guy's life. Taking away a tenth (or twentieth, if parole is to be considered) of a guy's life for the second time he robs with a knife, gun, or bat, and injures no one -regardless of the extenuating circumstances- seems reasonable to you?
We don't try to rehabilitate people in US prisons, or treat them like humans with problems. All we know how to do is lock people away in hopes of either breaking them or at least just keeping them far away from us. It's our only tool.
Then of course we are shocked and dismayed when somebody, even after such a long sentence, re-offends. So what if they have learned no life skills in prison except how to use violence, and have no job prospects. Better lock 'em up longer next time. That'll teach them!
Rather than say "injures no one - regardless of the extenuating circumstances", you could say "injures no one - through sheer dumb luck". If you point a gun at someone, it could easily enough go off without your planning it.
I do agree that removing the possibility of parole is a bad idea.
Firearms don't "go off" unless you pull the trigger. They also don't "go off" if you drop them; Federal standards and rigorous testing to the same ensure that.
As long as you practice appropriate trigger discipline [0], your firearm is no more dangerous than a club.
Quite. And one can always count on nervous 19-year-olds to practice appropriate trigger discipline.
As for dropping them, the .45 pistol the military still used 30 years ago, could do that. But no doubt they are all off the street, or at least the discriminating felon won't carry them.
In 1981, murderers served about a third of their sentences — roughly 3 ½ years, on average — before they were paroled or had their sentences commuted.
If that's not a typo, it is astonishing to me. Release after less than 4 years for murder? In our society most people don't murder other people and that amount of time doesn't send the message that it's a seriously unacceptable thing to do.
So of course people were outraged by that sort of thing and now the pendulum has swung to the "life means life" and there is little to no consideration of prior record, behavior while incarcerated, or possible other extenuating circumstances.
Rather than parole, I guess I'd rather see more "reasonable" (try to get people to agree on that, though) sentences in the first place, with add-on time for bad behavior, rather than long sentences and a parole system. The whole concept of parole, and the administration and expense of implementing it, seems unnecessary. Sentence people based on the crime of which they are convicted, and take into account their past criminal history. If they misbehave in prison, add time. If they offend again after release, sentence more harshly. Why do we need parole?