I figured you were a pd and not just a spammer who liked pds

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/09/schoolyard.killings/index.html

Seems like the suspect has a record. Quelle surprise.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press210.htm

1) There are costs to letting criminals off with lenient sentences, and not just in blood, the increase in crime causes increased medical costs, depressed economic activity etc. etc. Going on the presumption that many criminals do what they do multiple times (e.g., a guy who knocks over an old lady probably mugs on numerous occasions), locking up a mugger or a burglar for a long stretch prevents a ton of crime, and crimes have costs too.

2) I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that prison beds and other types of programs dealing with criminals are scarce resources. This reality pops up with the one size fits all approach to sex offenders. The more resources expended on dealing with low-level threats (and I include such persons’ decreased earning potential etc. as an expense), the less that will be focused on truly dangerous offenders.

3) Twenty years ago, I don’t think we were all that bright when it came to punishing criminals. Revolving door justice brought a ton of misery onto society. And that was unacceptable. Repeated and violent offenders need to be locked away for good. For good.

So Gideon, I’ll ask a hypo, point blank:

Let’s say a guy has the following record: a couple of convictions for forcible robbery (armed with a knife), a couple of convictions of burglary, and a couple of drug possession convictions, and then he graduates to forcible stranger rape and robbery (so there’s no issue about consent). What, in an ideal world would his total sentence be? And then of that, when would he be eligible for parole? And if you’re going to say it depends on criminal, then what would be the minimum total time and the earliest time eligible for parole?

Mine is life, parole eligible by 30.[/quote]
In your hypo, given his record, assuming no drug dependency, I’d say 25, execution suspended after 20, parole eligibility after 17 years (roughly 85%), 5 years probation (assuming this is a plea).

Link to story

Ed. Note: Edited for style

1) There are costs to letting criminals off with lenient sentences, and not just in blood, the increase in crime causes increased medical costs, depressed economic activity etc. etc. Going on the presumption that many criminals do what they do multiple times (e.g., a guy who knocks over an old lady probably mugs on numerous occasions), locking up a mugger or a burglar for a long stretch prevents a ton of crime, and crimes have costs too.

2) I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that prison beds and other types of programs dealing with criminals are scarce resources. This reality pops up with the one size fits all approach to sex offenders. The more resources expended on dealing with low-level threats (and I include such persons’ decreased earning potential etc. as an expense), the less that will be focused on truly dangerous offenders.

3) Twenty years ago, I don’t think we were all that bright when it came to punishing criminals. Revolving door justice brought a ton of misery onto society. And that was unacceptable. Repeated and violent offenders need to be locked away for good. For good.

So Gideon, I’ll ask a hypo, point blank:

Let’s say a guy has the following record: a couple of convictions for forcible robbery (armed with a knife), a couple of convictions of burglary, and a couple of drug possession convictions, and then he graduates to forcible stranger rape and robbery (so there’s no issue about consent). What, in an ideal world would his total sentence be? And then of that, when would he be eligible for parole? And if you’re going to say it depends on criminal, then what would be the minimum total time and the earliest time eligible for parole?

Mine is life, parole eligible by 30.