« CCJ report explores "The Relationship Between Sentence Length, Time Served, and State Prison Population Levels" | Main | Florida completes its first execution since 2019 »
February 23, 2023
Second-round celebrity sex offenders sentencing day
I got two alerts from the New York Times this afternoon about celebrity sentencings, and both involve sex offenders getting sentenced for the second time. Here are the headlines and the basics:
"Harvey Weinstein Sentenced to 16 Years for Los Angeles Sex Crimes"
Harvey Weinstein, the movie producer whose treatment of women propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017, was sentenced on Thursday to 16 years in prison for committing sex crimes in Los Angeles County. The sentence in Los Angeles adds to the 23 years Mr. Weinstein is serving in New York after his conviction there in 2020.
"R. Kelly Sentenced to 20 Years for Child Sex Crimes"
A federal judge on Thursday sentenced R. Kelly to 20 years in prison for child sex crimes, after a jury found that he had produced three videos of himself sexually abusing his 14-year-old goddaughter. In a victory for the defense, the judge ruled that all but one year of the prison sentence would be served at the same time as a previous 30-year sentence that Mr. Kelly received after a jury in Brooklyn convicted him of racketeering and sex trafficking charges.
February 23, 2023 at 03:15 PM | Permalink
Comments
Weinstein and R. Kelly are two sick dudes.
Posted by: federalist | Feb 24, 2023 10:10:36 AM
Hey, wait, I keep hearing here that only the poor and downtrodden get stiff sentences. Golly gosh.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 24, 2023 2:49:16 PM
Bill Otis, should the "pro-crime" folks be sad or happy with these outcomes?
Posted by: anon2 | Feb 25, 2023 9:54:28 AM
Bill Otis, exceptions prove the rule.
Posted by: Dave | Feb 25, 2023 9:55:37 AM
anon2 --
"Bill Otis, should the 'pro-crime' folks be sad or happy with these outcomes?"
You'd have to ask them. But don't worry, they're easy to find, they're all over the comments section.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 25, 2023 2:08:41 PM
Actually, Bill, you and Tarls and federalist have been by far the most active commentators here over the last few months. Not that I am complaining -- though I certainly do find some the off-topic Trump/Biden stuff tiresome. And I know it's partially my fault when I spend so much time putting words in others' mouths via comments. Still, when you suggest that R. Kelly and Harvey Weinstein are "poor and downtrodden," it is hard not to react.... :-)
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 25, 2023 2:58:38 PM
Doug --
"Actually, Bill, you and Tarls and federalist have been by far the most active commentators here over the last few months."
...which observation does not to even a slight degree contradict my statement that pro-crime commentators are easy to find here.
"Not that I am complaining -- though I certainly do find some the off-topic Trump/Biden stuff tiresome."
Do you find it tiresome that at least one of the darlings here opined that the world would be better if I were dead? And no, to preempt your next attempt to put words in my mouth, I DO NOT want him banned. To the contrary, I love it when the pro-crime people show their true colors. "Compassion" and all the rest of their BS.
"Still, when you suggest that R. Kelly and Harvey Weinstein are "poor and downtrodden," it is hard not to react.... :-)"
Ummmmmmmmmm, my whole point was that they ARE NOT downtrodden, putting the lie to the constant refrain from the pro-crime contingent that only the poor and dispossessed go to the slammer. (And I don't believe for a minute that you didn't get this).
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 25, 2023 8:43:05 PM
In order:
1. Fair enough, Bill, something can be "all over" and still in the minority. I just want to make sure you don't feel like an oppressed minority.
2. I would find it quite tiresome, Bill, if there were multiple people repeatedly opining that the world would be better if you were dead. I have not seen that. I saw one ugly comment at the end of a rant, and I believe that person later apologized for what he said. I always try to assume the best of all commentators despite the sensitive topics and sharp rhetoric often used here. I am sorry if that comment hurt your feelings, and if you want to leave again, so be it. I suspect you may hurt others' feelings with your "pro-crime" label.. (I suppose I could start describing you as part of the "pro-prison-rape" crowd because you favor more use of incarceration than I do, but I consider that kind of rhetoric unseemly as well as inaccurate.)
3. Of course I got your point, Bill, ergo the smiley face at the end of my comment. I was trying to make a joke that if I really wanted to waste time trying to put words in your mouth, I would pick words that you would find even more off-putting. I guess a "pro-crime" guy like me is just bad at making jokes and I should stick to helping Dr. Evil with his various nefarious plots.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 25, 2023 10:20:01 PM
Doug --
It's scarcely a matter of hurt feelings. When you're an AUSA for a long time, as I was, you get used to defense bar epithets. They can't go after the facts and they can't go after the law, so they go after the prosecutor. Oldest trick in the book. It's low class but old news to me at this point.
"I suppose I could start describing you as part of the 'pro-prison-rape' crowd because you favor more use of incarceration than I do, but I consider that kind of rhetoric unseemly as well as inaccurate."
HA!! Of course I'm the one who would prosecute the rapist while the majority of commenters here would defend him. (Just as I prosecuted corrupt cops while sanctimonious defense lawyers tried to get them off with a bunch of razzle-dazzle, US v. Muscarella, 585 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1978), found here: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-muscarella). The reason I prosecuted cops is that I'm law-oriented rather than result-oriented.
I didn't leave because of any insults directed at me. I left only after they started after my wife, a person of greater character and accomplishment than anyone who has ever commented here. I don't expect much from the pro-crime crowd, but I expected better than that. I guess I got a lesson.
Fair enough as to your third point. I had a misguided reaction because of the limitations of the medium, and I apologize for that.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 26, 2023 2:54:07 AM
No apologies needed, Bill, as a lot gets lost in this kind of forum. My back-and-forth with Tarls about incarceration and freedom is one of many examples where this medium may produce more confusion than clarity.
And I glad you understand that it would be unseemly and inaccurate to call you "pro-prison-rape" even if one thought more prison rape is a likely consequence of your policy positions. It is a shame you cannot see your reference to the "pro-crime crowd" is comparably unseemly and inaccurate even if you think more crime is likely consequence of their policy positions.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 26, 2023 11:34:43 AM
Doug --
Let me just respond with the venerable jury instruction: "The jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts." I freely concede that most of the government policies I actively support (e.g., more police, MM's, mandatory guidelines) would increase the prison population, just as it increased dramatically when crime rates were cratering over the Nineties. In that sense, I am indeed "pro-prison," although not pro-prison rape, since I would prosecute and seek severe sentences for the rapists, rather than try to cook up some fancy-dance mitigation like most of your commenters would.
By like reasoning, my opponents should concede that they are pro-crime. When we have less accountability for crime, as we did in the Sixties and Seventies, the natural and probable (and historical) consequence is more crime (indeed, in those years, massively more crime). Under the standard jury instruction, the jury would be entitled to infer that that is what the opponents of those softer policies intend.
Indeed, every now and again, I'll see an article to the effect that, if going lighter on punishment produces a bit of an uptick in crime, it's still worth it in order to reduce the cruelty and wastefulness and awfulness of incarceration.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 26, 2023 3:49:13 PM
As you know, Bill, we had historically high national crime rates through about 1993, long after the Sixties and Seventies and 20+ years into increased incarceration rates. Two dozen years of putting many, many more people in prison from 1970 to 1993 (500%+ growth) gave us massively more crime for a sustained period. Thankfully, due to an array of factors (of which mass incarceration surely played some role), crime rates fell for 13+ years while prison rates increased much more slowly. Thereafter, from roughly 2007 to 2019 we had no real increases and then modest reductions in imprisonment and continued (but not always steady) reductions in crime. So, for roughly 35 years of 49 pre-pandemic years (2/3 of the time), the prison/crime data shows an inverse of the relationship you seem to claim.
Policing is a different story. As recent work by Christopher Lewis and Adaner Usmani argues, a lot less money wasted on prisons and a lot more invested in police --- as is done in many other countries with much lower crimes rates --- may be the formula for effectively getting a lot less crime and a lot less prisoners (and thus less prison rape): https://direct.mit.edu/ajle/article/doi/10.1162/ajle_a_00030/112647
Put simply, your "pro-crime" inference --- that someone who want less prison wants more crime --- is just not supported by the data in the US or around the world. I am sure you have heard many reformers advocate for CJ reform in US to be more like western Europe with caps on prison terms and more humane prisons built more effectively around rehabilitation (which is close to impossible on massive scales). These reformers want less prison and less crime and so it is, as I said before, unseemly as well as inaccurate to say they are "pro-crime" for imagining the US does not have to be worse on all these metrics than the rest of the western world.
So, by your reasoning, Bill, you should not call others "pro-crime." When we have more people in prison, it is NOT clear that we are likely to get less crime (that's not been true for 66% of the years in the recent half-century and the data is can be more robust if we look at crime patterns over the prior half-century or if we drill into certain state data). However, sadly, the data is seemingly clearer that there is more prison rape when there are more people in prison. I recognize that you want to believe it is possible to have more people in prison and less prison rape, I have seen less data to support that belief than CJ reformer's advocating for policies they hope could give us less prison and less crime.
It is one thing to say that you think others are naive to believe we could have less prison and less crime (even though there it plenty of data to sustain such a belief). But it is not accurate to claim these folks are "pro-crime" just as it is not accurate to say your "pro-prison" admission is tantamount to a concession to being "pro-prison-rape."
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 26, 2023 5:15:36 PM
Doug --
I know, as do all your level-headed readers, whether I'm in favor of prison (or any other) rape. That is why I prosecuted rapists. Did you? Ever? Did the majority of people in the comments section, ever? And who defended rapists? Me? Sure!!!! Well, ummmmmmm, not exactly. Instead, the numerous defense lawyers here, a few of whom have the guts to identify themselves but most of whom don't.
As you sort of admit, ("Thankfully, due to an array of factors (of which mass incarceration surely played some role), crime rates fell for 13+ years while prison rates increased much more slowly."), more incarceration produces less crime. When a drug pusher is in the slammer, he's not selling smack to your 15 year-old. When a carjacker is in the slammer, he's not pointing a .45 at your ear and demanding the keys. When the bank robber is in the slammer, he's not in the vault at your JP Morgan branch. Etcetera. This point is not seriously debatable.
And I'll be overjoyed to see lots and lots of your commenters push for more policing and more aggressive and pro-active policing. Is that what you're seeing from them? Maybe as often as hen's teeth, but no more than that. Far more often, we see the cops portrayed here as if they were all Derek Chavin, which is false, destructive and disgusting.
If you wanted less crime, you'd prosecute criminals instead of constantly portraying them as hapless but deserving victims of a cruel system. Again, did you prosecute one, ever? Who among the commenters here, save only tmm, ever prosecuted a rapist? And by contrast, who took (and for all I know, takes) the side of rapists -- you know, "She'll get over it, and besides, her dress was too short." Who says that? Prosecutors?
This is just rudimentary common sense: The way to get less crime is to increase the costs of committing it. One among several ways to do that is through robust prosecution and sober sentencing. That's where I put my career, I'm very, very, very happy to say.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 27, 2023 12:01:27 AM
Bill, I have said repeatedly that, just as it is unseemly and inaccurate for you to call others "pro-crime," it would be unseemly and inaccurate to call you "pro-prison-rape." That you are working so hard to dispute the silly label I am NOT trying to pin on you perhaps should give you pause before you keep using a comparable silly label on others.
Meanwhile, I do robustly dispute that more incarceration ALWAYS produces less crime. The majority of the last century has NOT seen a close relationship between imprisonment level and crime levels. Moreover, when "a drug pusher is in the slammer," you create a market opportunity for others to sell drugs at a higher price. When you incarcerate large parts of communities, you risk destabilizing the community and creating more crime. And the prison rape story is part of an important reminder that we do not even fully incapacitate dangerous persons through incarceration, we just change the community they have a chance to victimize.
If more incarceration ALWAYS produced less crime, the US would have historically and globally low crime rates since we have historically and globally high incarceration rates. But, sadly, we have high incarceration and high crime relative to both US history and the rest of the western world, which is exactly why it is reasonable for many advocates to believe we could possibly, and we should aspire to, have less incarceration and less crime. And that is why it is unseemly and inaccurate to call people advocating for less incarceration "pro-crime" just as it would be unseemly and inaccurate to call you "pro-prison-rape."
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 27, 2023 9:36:41 AM
Doug --
"Meanwhile, I do robustly dispute that more incarceration ALWAYS produces less crime."
But the question for purposes of shaping law and policy is whether ON BALANCE it produces less crime, and the answer to that is too obvious to belabor. Because public policy entails trade-off's, you can't get to ALWAYS no matter what.
"When you incarcerate large parts of communities, you risk destabilizing the community and creating more crime."
We have never incarcerated large parts of communities, at least if "large" retains any sensible meaning. But if a point be made of it, when we increased incarceration for 20 years, 1990-2010 -- including incarcerating criminals from inner cities -- we did not create more crime; to the exact contrary, crime fell dramatically.
"And the prison rape story is part of an important reminder that we do not even fully incapacitate dangerous persons through incarceration, we just change the community they have a chance to victimize."
No, not at all. We do not "just" change the community they have a chance to victimize. We make that community exponentially smaller, which is a very good thing. P.S. Would you prosecute prison rapists or defend them? I know which side I'm on.
"If more incarceration ALWAYS produced less crime, the US would have historically and globally low crime rates since we have historically and globally high incarceration rates."
International comparisons are all but useless because of huge variations in history, economics, culture, law, legal tradition, and demographics, for starters. This is not to mention that crime statistics from much of the world (e.g., China, Russia, Iran, much of the Middle East) are pure fiction.
To repeat: When you increase the costs, risks and burdens of committing crime, you get less crime. When you decrease these things, you get more crime. This is elemental economics. Again, I know which side I'm on, with respect to prison rape and all the rest of it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 27, 2023 2:07:12 PM
Bill, we are not debating "shaping law and policy," we are debating whether someone who advocates for less incarceration in the nation with the largest prison populations in world history is properly labelled "pro-crime." You have not come close to making your case. (Does your "elemental economics" mean anyone who advocates or votes against any criminal legislation is "pro-crime"? I believe Tom Cotton voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but I certainly would not claim that makes him "pro-crime.")
Just as I would find it unseemly and inaccurate to call people skeptical about vaccine mandates "pro-COVID," just as I would find it unseemly and inaccurate to call you "pro-prison-rape" even though you are "pro-prison," I find it unseemly and inaccurate to call people skeptical about mass incarceration "pro-crime."
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 27, 2023 3:22:14 PM
Doug,
In the field of psychology, it’s not even controversial that punishment reduces an activity and reward increases it. It’s true from humans right down to mice pushing a buzzer.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 27, 2023 11:51:01 PM
Doug --
Again I recur to the venerable jury instruction that we may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts (of advocacy). When a person advocates having thousands upon thousands fewer hoodlums locked up, and instead keeping them free to do their thing on the street, it doesn't leave a whole lot to the imagination.
"Does your 'elemental economics' mean anyone who advocates or votes against any criminal legislation is "pro-crime"?"
Depends on what's in the legislation. If it's to abolish prison altogether, as the Harvard Law Review recommended a few years back, it's simply impossible to believe the people supporting that proposal don't know it will lead to more crime. Simply impossible.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 28, 2023 12:09:18 AM
Tarls, the criminology literature also makes it VERY clear and it is not even controversial that the CERTAINTY of punishment, not its SEVERITY, matters so much more to deter/reduce an activity. I think the late Prof Mark Kleinman's book on these matters is especially effective: When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment:
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691148649/when-brute-force-fails
That's why the more cops, less prison seems to work much better around the world.
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 28, 2023 11:59:41 AM
Doug,
I don’t believe for a minute that the threat of five years is just as much a deterrent as death. Or, if a speeding ticket was $10, you wouldn’t have much more speeding.
What does matter is the length of time between the act and punishment. It’s why it shouldn’t take 10, 20, 30 years to happen.
Certainty does come into play as well. You make a great case for using the death penalty much more often. It also reduces the prison population, so win-win!!!
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 28, 2023 1:56:28 PM
If you want more to go on than just your beliefs, Tarls, here are some relatively recent reviews of just some of the research literature:
https://law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academy_for_justice/2_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Vol_4_Deterrence.pdf
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_413
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~jmccrary/chalfin_mccrary2017.pdf
Here is a line from the abstract of the last of these linked papers: "While there is considerable evidence that crime is responsive to police and to the existence of attractive legitimate labor-market opportunities, there is far less evidence that crime responds to the severity of criminal sanctions."
The literature does not assert that severity is entirely inconsequential in all settings, but certainty clearly matters so very much more. Improving clearance rates for crimes would need to be greatly improved for greater certainty in the US. That is why the shift of resources from cells to cops seems empirically appealing if we really want to reduce crime in the US (and why, based on the evidence, calls to abolish police are actually more dangerous than, say, calls to abolish the death penalty).
Posted by: Doug B. | Feb 28, 2023 2:40:26 PM
Doug,
I’m much more inclined to go with actual science than social science, the latter not being “science” at all.
I can also see it everyday in real life situations. I get a much better outcome taking away my son’s hobby (which also makes him money) for a week than taking away dessert for the night.
You have admitted yourself the great bias in criminal “research,” so even you know it on some level. Your law students fear getting caught for plagiarism because it will impact their careers, not because they don’t want to disappoint you.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 28, 2023 4:23:13 PM
Doug,
https://www.americanexperiment.org/court-failures-continue-as-gun-offender-murders-a-man-just-40-minutes-after-walking-out-of-court/
I would love to hear your theory on how the lack of severity for his previous crimes did not embolden the thug (I call him a thug because of his criminal history, not because he belongs to any age demographic that commits more crime ) in the above link. There was certainly enough police, as he was caught numerous times committing many crimes, including felonies.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 28, 2023 4:34:18 PM
*severity of punishment
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 28, 2023 4:43:39 PM
Doug,
One more. I wonder what you think about what President Bukale has done in El Salvador.
Crime has already dropped like a rock.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Feb 28, 2023 7:25:28 PM
Tarls, much here, I will try to quickly cover ground:
1. Punishing your son: first, when comparing two certain punishments, severity surely can matter, but then with what limits? Why not lock him in his room for a month or a year or a decade to keep him from doing whatever he did wrong? If you told me to punish him and said all you care about is that he never does the bad deed again, I suppose I should just lock him up for life, right? Seeking to increase certainty never reaches a tipping point, do you think increasing severity also never should? If anyone merits punishment, do they also merit 150 years in prison?
2. Of course there are all sorts of biases in all sorts of research, but the evidence about punishment certainty being, relatively speaking, more important than punishment severity for crime control/desistence has been shown by all sorts of research in all sorts of settings. Of course, there are profound questions/challenges at the margins and it will always be hard to implement certainty (or any level of severity) efficiently and consistently. But the evidence is plenty strong enough to support the main point that someone advocating for more certain and less severe punishment is not "pro-crime," but rather is making an evidence-based argument about one way to try to reduce crime. I welcome you pointing me to competing research, but if we are going to just debate "beliefs" and "biases," we may as well just debate the particulars of the old and new testament.
3. The argument here is not in favor of a "lack of severity" -- the case you cite is a good example of one thug seemingly becoming more certain that he would avoid serious punishment and harm follows. Responsible folks troubled by the scale of US incarceration certainly should be troubled by examples of excessive leniency (and, of course, we do not know how many crimes this thug committed that he was not caught for, so there may be both a certainty and a severity problem here). Responsible folks can and should be able to say your case is an error of undue leniency while also being concerned about about undue severity in cases like Jared Stephen and Alice Marie Johnson. And, I highly recommend the Lewis and Usmani piece showing how our crime-fighting dollars would likely have much more bang for the buck with more cops and fewer cells: https://direct.mit.edu/ajle/article/doi/10.1162/ajle_a_00030/112647
4. As for El Salvador, all I know is what I read in the press. Reuters reports:
"More than 64,000 suspects have been arrested in the anti-crime dragnet. Arrests can be made without a warrant, private communications are accessible by the government, and detainees no longer have the right to a lawyer. Human rights organizations argue that innocent people have been caught up in the policy, including at least dozens who have died in police custody."
Though I do not all the particulars, mass arrests as part of an anti-crime dragnet does sound a bit similar to my prior hypo (that you balked about) suggesting incarcerating every male between certain ages.
Do you think future Prez DeSantis should seek to follow this script? Heck, why should Gov. DeSantis wait: Jacksonville had well over twice as many murders as similar sized San Francisco in 2022. Should Gov DeSantis try to follow the President Bukale playbook in his biggest city?
Posted by: Doug B | Feb 28, 2023 11:16:42 PM
Doug,
1. The question was whether increased punishment reduces bad behavior. The example shows that it does, in spite of what some goofs with an agenda want to pretend is not human nature. There is a deterrent value.
2. This is not about “beliefs.” It’s about what nearly every psychologist has said since the era of Pavlov, and how people with an agenda pretend that what is known to be true from humans down to mice suddenly ends with punishment. That’s even omitting the fact that imprisoned individuals are not capable of hurting general society (they certainly can within the confines) again.
3. You say it is not about “lack of severity” and then go on to talk about “excessive leniency.” You are arguing with yourself. “Getting caught” did not deter this man because he had spent his life facing few consequences for his actions.
It’s simple. Would the thug have been deterred from killing the shop owner if in prison?
Finally, you blow past the issue of “undue leniency” like it’s not exactly what we are talking about. It’s already everywhere we look, and let’s not pretend it is not EXACTLY what you and your ilk want. My heavens, we see cases of child molesters who get a few months and people come out of the woodwork to comment on why the sentence is OK. Undue leniency is not a bug. It’s a feature.
4. The point being made is not the tactics of arrests, etc. It’s about the amount of crime in Honduras. From what I read, there wasn’t a murder in an entire week in the country. Previously, I believe, it had the highest rate in the Americas. Locking bad people up “in cages” works.
When you arrest 62,000 people, it’s a statistical certainty that some innocents will get caught up. It’s tragic, but it is true of any system. That said, look at the video of the people being brought to the new 40,000 people prison. There isn’t a guy without MS-13 tats in the bunch.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 1, 2023 12:33:26 PM
Tarls,
1+2. I thought we were discussing whether more punishment certainty or more punishment severity was a more effective way to reduce crime. I agree that, when certainty of punishment is constant, severity of punishment matters. And though plenty of advocates make dumb arguments/claims, I have just been seeking to make the point that one can responsibly look at the criminology literature and make and a reasoned (but debatable) claim that we could have less imprisonment and less crime in the US. The Kleinman book was one example of such a reasoned argument, so too is the Lewis and Usmani piece. Do you dispute my suggestion that it is possible to plausibly argue we could have less imprisonment and less crime in the US?
You have elided the question of whether there is a severity tipping point and/or whether how other values matter. If we lock your son up in his room forever for his bad behavior, he would not be "capable of hurting general society." But I trust other values also matter when you punish your son. Is it misguided for advocates to suggest that other values ought also to matter when society punishes other people's sons?
3+4. I think you mean to ask "Would the thug have been [INCAPACITATED] from killing the shop owner if in prison?." Surely he would. And if your main point is that we need to do a better job incapacitating dangerous people, I agree 100%. But how do we do that effectively and efficiently? The FIRST STEP Act included a risk assessment tool intended to use prison more strategically, and I generally favor using such tools as part of bail, sentencing and release decision-making. So we are, as I have suggested before, on the same basic page. But, especially as you praise dragnet approaches to combat crime, it does seem, in some sense, that would be just fine with locking up large swaths of persons who, data tells us, have the highest chance of committing crimes.
I surmise your eagerness for mass arrest and more and more severe incarceration is because you sincerely believe "Undue leniency is not a bug. It’s a feature." If the US had a relatively small incarceration rate or if we did not have any LWOP sentences while the rest of the world did, or if any other nation had a scale of punishment anything like ours, perhaps I might share that perspective. But because I see historically/globally high incarceration rates already in place, a scale of punishments considered a human rights violations around the world, and I fear that our overcrowded and under-resourced prisons and jails contributes to the very leniency you lament.
But, I fully get that if the fear of crime and criminals is high enough, lots of people will cheer dragnet efforts to lock other people's sons away forever, even when we know "some innocents will get caught up."
Posted by: Doug B | Mar 1, 2023 4:38:49 PM
One more item, Tarls, to allow me to highlight one area where I generally agree with your view that "Undue leniency is not a bug. It’s a feature." Our drunk driving laws and punishments have always struck me as generally too lenient given the many thousands killed by drunk driving. This came to mind as I saw this new item: "Pedestrian death surge spurs highway safety officials to sound alarm." https://pluribusnews.com/news-and-events/pedestrian-death-surge-spurs-highway-safety-officials-to-sound-alarm/
Posted by: Doug B | Mar 1, 2023 5:03:33 PM
