[toomuchtodo]

What do you believe Sam would do if granted a shorter sentence, assuming they believe they've done nothing wrong? Who should carry the burden of re-offense without remorse?

People make mistakes, to err is human, and forgiveness should be provided to those with the capacity to change (ie harm less). Compassion is important. But if you don't believe you've done anything wrong, can we not project future potential outcomes? Prison duration is a risk assessment of harm reduction.

EDIT: Prison should still be about rehabilitation and treating humans humanely, to be clear.

[nkozyra]

> What do you believe Sam would do if granted a shorter sentence, assuming they believe they've done nothing wrong?

Ostensibly the same thing as after a 22 year sentence, just later.

[sangnoir]

The difference is society gets 12 additional years of safety which it wouldn't get otherwise. Ostensibly.

[nkozyra]

> The difference is society gets 12 additional years of safety which it wouldn't get otherwise.

Naturally, by this logic I have to ask: why not 32 years? 52? 102? Aren't we doing society a disservice by ever allowing criminals to leave prison?

> Ostensibly

I chose this word carefully, because I think a lot of our preconceived notions on criminal behavior have not been validated by the real world, including the deterrent effects of long-term imprisonments.

[sangnoir]

> Naturally, by this logic I have to ask: why not 32 years? 52? 102?

Because the sentencing judge applied the guidelines provided by law as written by legislature, considered case-law, the specifics of this case and applied their professional judgement to come up with a 25-year sentence as an appropriate one for the crimes committed. If the defendant disagrees, they can appeal the sentence to get a second opinion.

You're attempting to reductio ad absurdum prison sentences - I'll apply it to your argument in turn - why send guilty people to prison at all? What's the difference between 1 day imprisonment and 60, or 6000? A sense of proportion is the difference between a black-and-white world and the one we strive for in reality.

[nkozyra]

> Because the sentencing judge applied the guidelines provided by law as written

We know the mechanics of why it was chosen. What I was asking was by your logic, 22 is less protective of society than 102, which makes me question the validity of "it protects society" reasoning. Why protect less when we have a quantifiably greater level of protection?

> You're attempting to reductio ad absurdum prison sentences

This is incredibly dismissive. We have arbitrary sentencing guidelines. They are based on reasoning, but that doesn't mean they are correct. They are fluid, change from locale to locale, and have unpredictable efficacy.

> why send people to prison at all? What's the difference between 1 day imprisonment and 60

You see, I don't think that's reductio ad absurdum at all. It's a valid question. You can argue for it and against it, but it isn't absurd or contradictory on its face.

> A sense of proportion is the difference between a black-and-white world

All you're saying here is 6000 > 1. We know this. I'm asking why 6000 is right, 1 is wrong, and why we throw away the other 5998.

[sangnoir]

> What I was asking was by your logic, 22 is less protective of society than 102, which makes me question the validity of "it protects society" reasoning

The answer to all variations of your underlying question in your post is because when handing down sentences, there are multiple, oft-conflicting considerations. We don't only consider societal safety - if we did we'd just jail everyone for life.

6000 is right because it is the right point of balance between keeping society safe and the rights of the imprisoned, while reflecting the seriousness of the crime without being cruel or unusual. Prison sentences inherently take away rights from the prisoner, and this is yet another thing that's thrown onto the pile of considerations for tradeoffs which individually lengthen or shorten the term of imprisonment. It's not a binary decision like you propose (imprisoned vs not imprisoned for any crime), but finding the right balance point (likely region or volume) on multidimensional axes.

I'm not a trial judge, but I can think of the following factors off thr top of my head: nature of crime committed, remorse, amount of harm, restitution (if any), sentencing guidelines in the law, probability of recidivism, safety of society, safety of defendant, sentences issued on similar cases in the past, appeals on similar cases in the past, prosecutor sentencing recommendations, defense sentencing recommendations, time already served, culpability, the number of charges defendant is found guilty of and whether they can be served simultaneously or not, etc. You're ignoring all of these and projecting the sentence to a single dimension (societal safety).

You haven't answered why you think we imprison people in the first place (or if we should). We cant have a fruitful discussion about which sentence durations are "better" without knowing what metrics we are measuring.

[bombcar]

What safety does society get with him in prison that it wouldn't get with him outside prison and restricted from any "financial" type job?

I don't really see the harm in him working at McDonalds, for example, except maybe he'd embezzle from the till, so put him on fries.

[tsimionescu]

If he's free, he could very well pretend he's someone else and skirt the restrictions, or convince someone else to act as his pawn.

[latexr]

> People make mistakes, to err is human

Hard to make that argument when discussing fraud, which by definition is intentional deception.

[gjsman-1000]

> EDIT: Prison should still be about rehabilitation and treating humans humanely, to be clear.

No. Prison should be about punishment combined with rehabilitation, neither at the expense of the other.

It is perfectly OK to say that punishment, the infliction of pain, for a crime, is warranted even if it has no rehabilitative value, assuming that it is not demeaning or cruel.

Why? Several reasons:

1. Punishment has it's own value for the sake of justice. A hypothetical: Imagine there was a drug, with a 10% fatality rate, that perfectly rendered the receiver incapable of murder without any other side effects. They just perfectly gain control of their emotions and reason, or something to that effect. If a person goes and murders 50 individuals, but takes the drug and lives; they've been theoretically perfectly rehabilitated and need to be let back into society, right?

If you think, "of course not," you are now admitting that punishment has a value by itself.

EDIT: Also, this hypothetical, actually exists. Imagine this case with SBF. Imagine if the only penalty for his actions, were that he could not run a banking organization ever again, or hold more than $1,000,000 in any account that he controls. Perfectly rehabilitated, my hypothetical with the drug, in one swoop. He will never be able to commit this crime again.

I think I might very well run and do a financial fraud tomorrow. At least I'll enjoy the high life for several years. You are literally telling me, in that case, I could live for years, possibly decades (if I'm Madoff), and my only punishment will be that I can't do it again. After all, it's only about rehabilitation for myself; and to do otherwise would be punishment for punishment's sake.

2. If punishment is not given out fairly, and is only contingent upon rehabilitation; you are ignoring the rights and feelings of the victims and focusing too heavily on the rights and feelings of the criminal. Victims have feelings and rights, and considering they are the harmed, their feelings and rights ought to be first priority, and the criminal's second. Otherwise, victims feel the need to take things into their own hands. Always have, always will, as part of human nature. That's how you get societal meltdown, followed by vigilantism.

[jddj]

> If you think, "of course not"...

And if you think it sounds reasonable?

While there's some benefit (deterrence) to there being perceived costs to bad behaviour, it's arguable whether punishment for the sake of punishment stands up on its own merits.

In your proposed world, where murderousness is recognised as a treatable illness, it doesn't really seem reasonable to punish to punish or to imprison as a deterrent.

[gjsman-1000]

I'll kill your daughter, scatter her remains on the road, take the drug, and see if you think otherwise.

Think about it. Under this hypothetical (which I think is OK, everybody does Trolly Problems all the time), you should be just fine with this result. The deterrence value is there (10% chance of death), I've been rehabilitated permanently so I can be let out a week after I did the murder, it's all good. I might as well add some torture to the mix as well, because the drug will perfectly rehabilitate that too, of course, so it doesn't really matter how I did it either.

[nkozyra]

> you should be just fine with this result.

Some people are. Some people who have been victimized do forgive and ask for leniency.

There is an emotional and personal aspect to that, but typically we don't set laws that way.

I'd also argue that "it's all good" is not a fair measure for when we consider justice to be served. Practically, when there's nothing left to gain, the scale tips from justice to pure retribution.

[gjsman-1000]

> Some people are. Some people who have been victimized do forgive and ask for leniency.

I think you're confusing forgiveness with punishment. The two are not incompatible.

If your son hits your daughter, you forgive him immediately (you do not hold hatred or anger in your heart for that action); but you still punish him to deter the future behavior. The two are not incompatible, or at odds with one another. Similarly, it is not incompatible that a man who committed mass murder might be forgiven by the families (in that they won't hold hate in their hearts, or use his name as a curse), but the families may also simultaneously desire that the individual be removed from society.

> Practically, when there's nothing left to gain, the scale tips from justice to pure retribution.

Retribution is part of justice, and is not at odds with it. If I steal $500, I owe $500 as part of justice. If I steal $1,000; I owe $1,000 as part of justice. If I steal $10 billion dollars, a sum I shall never repay, I can only beg forgiveness and pay the most I reasonably can, for a reasonable amount of my life. For justice, at that point, recognizes that a society which allowed me to steal $10 billion in the first place, has some responsibility as well, reducing the required amount for retribution.

[nkozyra]

> I think you're confusing forgiveness with punishment. The two are not incompatible.

Not at all. You said "you should be fine with it," which is really "acceptance" rather than forgiveness, although they go hand in hand.

My point was simply that being fine with it or not being fine with it as an personal, emotional response typically does not guide modern societal rules.

> Retribution is part of justice, and is not at odds with it.

Inherently this is probably true, but we actually have laws that are intended to specifically exclude that as a factor, depending on jurisdiction.

[jddj]

In this case, the deterrent makes sense.

The punishment so that the universe feels more fair to me isn't all that useful. Maybe as you suggest the mob lynchings in this case are unavoidable but I'm not convinced.

Happily (both for those who want to subjectively See Justice Done, and for those who upon reflection find it all a little perverse), the two don't really seem to be separable beyond a certain point.

[gjsman-1000]

It might work for you, but are you telling me that if you were the murderer in question, you wouldn't be afraid that the family wouldn't assassinate you at first opportunity if this happened to their daughter?

A heavy sentence is safety for the criminal as well.

[jddj]

That seems completely orthogonal to the point I disagreed with, which was (loosely, sorry) that punishment purely for punishment's sake is a social good.