Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

[Arcade22]

That might be extreme, but there has to be some enhanced penalty. Otherwise you're saying that the first crime gets punished, but others are free. Nobody would think that's a good idea. And instead of a thousand minor assaults, think of hundred rapes. You think that should be treated the same as one? If not for punishment, you at least want to keep a serial criminal off the streets to protect the public.

Sweden limits how long of a sentence one can get to 18 years at most, with the exception of life imprisonment, which is usually converted into a prison sentence of at least 18 years. Generally people only serve at most 2/3 of their sentence in prison and the rest on conditional release.

Basically the same applies if someone is sentenced to a psychiatric hospital except there's no minimum length of time since they are supposedly only going to stay there until they are demed not a risk to others or themselves or otherwise engage in serious crimes.

Moreover, someone who is convicted of multiple offences can only be sentenced to the longest allowed for any of said offences plus additional time depending on the roof of the most serious offence.

This prevents people from being imprisoned for an excessive amount of time.

 

[Belz...]

That might be extreme, but there has to be some enhanced penalty. Otherwise you're saying that the first crime gets punished, but others are free.

Those aren't the only possibilities.

But let's take the slap example. First slap is a simple assault. You get say 2 weeks in jail, just to teach you a lesson. But if you slapped a thousand people, accumulating them would mean that you get 38 years. That'd be pretty dumb for slaps, right? But you also shouldn't get the same 2 weeks for slapping a thousand folks. Of course there's a middle ground in there somewhere. Maybe you get 6 months or something.

Now, I know what this guy did isn't just slapping people, but the question is whether it makes sense to just add sentences like this. I find it interesting, though I don't have a final opinion on it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As best as I can put it into words I have an issue with them because they are a one way street.

Nobody could stand up in court and go "Yeah my client stabbed somebody to death... but let's be honest that guy was sort of a douche. Nobody liked him. So let's be honest does my client really deserve the maximum sentence?" and I don't see this but the same thing just in a different direction.

I'm against more sympathetic or likable victims getting more "justice" than unlikable or sympathetic victims. There's way too much room for personal biases and emotional pleading to be intentionally or unintentionally introduced into what is supposed to be passionless system.

Person A getting a heavier sentence than Person B because Person A has someone to stand up in court and gush about how wonderful of a person they were just doesn't sit well with me.

The poor, unloved hobo doesn't deserve less justice than the prom queen and I don't see how this sort of mentality isn't just different variations on and degrees of that.

You certainly do get character witnesses for the defendant. See all the ones about how rapist Brock Turner couldn't enjoy steak anymore with the criminal charges of his rape hanging over him. That certainly earned him a much lighter sentence with the judge.

So it is clearly not just a one way street.

 

[Thermal]

It might boggle the mind, but it does not surprise me at all.

He was already sentenced for possession of child pornography (and in accordance with the plea agreement for the sexual assaults) to terms longer than the natural term of the remainder of his life.... He was never getting out anyway, so what does he have to lose?

True, but what does he have to gain? Playing devil's advocate (so to speak), wouldn't it make more sense from his POV to change the plea to not guilty on all counts and buy himself some time outside a cell, fighting the charges? While it would be a losing battle for him, what does he have to lose?

 

[Darat]

True, but what does he have to gain? Playing devil's advocate (so to speak), wouldn't it make more sense from his POV to change the plea to not guilty on all counts and buy himself some time outside a cell, fighting the charges? While it would be a losing battle for him, what does he have to lose?

Would he have got bail?

 

[Bob001]

Sweden limits how long of a sentence one can get to 18 years at most, with the exception of life imprisonment, which is usually converted into a prison sentence of at least 18 years. Generally people only serve at most 2/3 of their sentence in prison and the rest on conditional release.

Basically the same applies if someone is sentenced to a psychiatric hospital except there's no minimum length of time since they are supposedly only going to stay there until they are demed not a risk to others or themselves or otherwise engage in serious crimes.

Moreover, someone who is convicted of multiple offences can only be sentenced to the longest allowed for any of said offences plus additional time depending on the roof of the most serious offence.

This prevents people from being imprisoned for an excessive amount of time.

So you do have longer sentences, even life, just a different mechanism for imposing them.

Are Swedes looking forward to having Anders Behring Breivik back on the streets? What would you consider an "excessive amount of time" for him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europe/anders-behring-breivik-murder-trial.html

 

[Thermal]

Sweden limits how long of a sentence one can get to 18 years at most, with the exception of life imprisonment, which is usually converted into a prison sentence of at least 18 years. Generally people only serve at most 2/3 of their sentence in prison and the rest on conditional release.

Basically the same applies if someone is sentenced to a psychiatric hospital except there's no minimum length of time since they are supposedly only going to stay there until they are demed not a risk to others or themselves or otherwise engage in serious crimes.

Moreover, someone who is convicted of multiple offences can only be sentenced to the longest allowed for any of said offences plus additional time depending on the roof of the most serious offence.

This prevents people from being imprisoned for an excessive amount of time.

Are you suggesting Nassar's sentence is excessive? 37,000 videos of child pornography found, obstruction of justice as he destroyed evidence, and some of those videos reportedly featured him molesting children himself. This is all before his 168 other victims have testified. What is the roof of his most serious additional offense here? This man is an unrepentant, serial, career child molester, who only stopped because he was publicly called out. Most offenders do deserve a chance to be rehabilitated and rejoin society. Do you think this ghoul qualifies?

 

[Bob001]

True, but what does he have to gain? Playing devil's advocate (so to speak), wouldn't it make more sense from his POV to change the plea to not guilty on all counts and buy himself some time outside a cell, fighting the charges? While it would be a losing battle for him, what does he have to lose?

He was denied bail on the federal charges. He was already in jail with no prospect of ever getting out.
http://www.espn.com/olympics/gymnas...astics-doctor-larry-nassar-child-porn-charges

 

[Thermal]

Would he have got bail?

Doubt it in the extreme. He would likely rot in his cell, presumably isolated from other inmates for his own protection (US inmates are said to begrudge two unforgivable offenses: snitching and child molestation). But he could get some time out of that cell while maintaining a legal battle while imprisoned.

 

[Thermal]

He was denied bail on the federal charges. He was already in jail with no prospect of ever getting out.
http://www.espn.com/olympics/gymnas...astics-doctor-larry-nassar-child-porn-charges

You're right, he would never be free. But ongoing suits could get him out of the cell, preparing the losing battle with his attorney and hearings outside the court. Beats the hell out of his well-deserved alternative.

 

[Information Analyst]

And that's a great big "I don't give a ****"!

Don't want to get arse-reamed in a prison? Simple; don't commit crimes!!!

Yeah, because it's that simple....

 

[Belz...]

And that's a great big "I don't give a ****"!

Don't want to get arse-reamed in a prison? Simple; don't commit crimes!!!

Or, alternatively, don't be judged guilty by a jury of your peers, regardless of your actual guilt.

 

[Information Analyst]

Rehabilitation should only be applied if it can be just about guaranteed that the released prisoner is no more likely to re-offend than any other member of the public. In the USA, the reoffending rate was between 68 and 77% in 2005. I'd be interested to know if that has improved. As mentioned by Information Analyst, Scandinavian countries have the lowest re-offending rates, and they only get down to 50%... not good enough!

Except those rates are for all crimes. A lot of repeat offenders are for relatively petty crimes, rather than serious ones. For example, in 2012 it was reported that between 2000/01 and 2010/11 in England & Wales there were 35 homicides where the perpetrator had been previously convicted and then released. It should be noted, though that there were 8,663 homicides in that time period, so while 35 is not trivial, it is only 0.4% of the total, suggesting that - despite popular misconceptions, released murderers are very unlikely to re-offend. The re-offending rate is actually likely to be less than 0.4%, because one would expect released prisoners to have previously done 10-30 years, and between 1970 and 1999/2000 there were actually around 19,000 homicides.

 

[Bob001]

You're right, he would never be free. But ongoing suits could get him out of the cell, preparing the losing battle with his attorney and hearings outside the court. Beats the hell out of his well-deserved alternative.

You're assuming he had the resources to continue what would be an extremely expensive defense in federal and state courts. I doubt it. Maybe he'll have a chance to get out of his cell occasionally if he testifies at what are likely to be hundreds of civil suits.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah, because it's that simple....

Glad you agree

Or, alternatively, don't be judged guilty by a jury of your peers, regardless of your actual guilt.

We are talking about a serial offender (over 150 mostly under age victims) who has plead guilty. Being judged by a jury of his peers doesn't enter into the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

We are talking about a serial offender (over 150 mostly under age victims) who has plead guilty. Being judged by a jury of his peers doesn't enter into the discussion.

Of course it does. You made a very general comment about prison rape. I'm pointing out that not only is prison rape not a feature of the system but a bug, but that perhaps you should care a little more about those who end up there, especially since many of them will come back out.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem with focusing too much of recidivism rates is it functionally gives people a "ya get the first one free" crime.

If you never committing another crime until the heath death of the universe in every possible universe was a 100% metaphysical certainty does that make the crime you did commit just not matter?

Maybe this is just something the gloriously perfect socialist utopias of Europe have over us backwater Neanderthal Americas but people should pay for the crimes they committed, not get scored on potential crimes they might commit one day.

 

[smartcooky]

Except those rates are for all crimes. A lot of repeat offenders are for relatively petty crimes, rather than serious ones. In 2012 it was reported that between 2000/01 and 2010/11 in England & Wales there were 35 homicides where the perpetrator had been previously convicted and then released. It should be noted, though that there were 8,663 homicides in that time period, so while 35 is not trivial, it is only 0.4% of the total, suggesting that - despite popular misconceptions, released murderers are very unlikely to re-offend. The re-offending rate is actually likely to be less than 0.4%, because one would expected released prisoners to have done 10-30 years, and between 1970 and 1999/2000 there were actually around 19,000 homicides.

Come back to me when you have some figures for reoffending rapists, serial rapists, armed robbers and burglars.

I'll even help by getting you started with the rape figures

In the UK in 2012 there were 1,200 rape convictions in which the offender had previous convictions for rape in 43 cases and other sexual offences in 136 instances, according to figures released by the Ministry of Justice.

Elsewhere, the figures, first published in The Sun newspaper, showed that nearly half of rapists (48%) in 2012 were released from jail after serving half or less of their sentence, up from 43% in 2011.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/418271/Rape-figures-show-reoffending-rate

Perhaps you would like to explain to those 179 people that its OK that they were raped/sexually assaulted because there is a greater good here of rehabilitating prisoners. Let me know how you get on.

179 is not a trivial number of people, its 179 people who were sexually assaulted or raped, that would not have been had the offender been kept inside.

 

[Belz...]

The problem with focusing too much of recidivism rates is it functionally gives people a "ya get the first one free" crime.

If you never committing another crime until the heath death of the universe in every possible universe was a 100% metaphysical certainty does that make the crime you did commit just not matter?

I don't think you are representing this issue properly. You don't get the first one free if you get a somewhat lesser sentence.

 

[theprestige]

This prevents people from being imprisoned for an excessive amount of time.

For sufficiently small values of "excessive". Some might argue that Sweden is excessively lenient on people who have committed multiple heinous acts against citizens and society.

Perhaps it is also the case that fully-assimilated Swedes come from and return to a culture where 18 years in prison actually cures most ills.