[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I understand your sentiments sandtrapjack. I cannot tell you how upset I get when I read articles on CNN about a sex offender who, while out on parole, kidnapped and killed a young child. Moreover, in Wisconsin for example, two-thirds of all felons who are released from prison are likely to be charged with another felony at some point in their lives. So, I understand why many members of the public want to increase the minimum and maximum sentences, do away with parole, and amend the sentencing guidelines.

However, as others like Lady Brave have so eloquently noted, there are a whole host of problems with making sweeping changes to the justice system to eliminate the problem of recidivist criminal activity. From a practical standpoint, prisons are already overcrowded and prisons cost a LOT of money to build and maintain. If you want to lengthen sentences, be prepared to support increasing taxes. From an ethical standpoint, it's complicated. I've worked in a Federal prison (Oxford FCI) and I've gotten to know a lot of criminals. Not all of them are the dangerous monsters that you think they are; many have been caught in VERY unfortunate situations, hung out with the wrong people, had no supervision or guidance growing up, screwed up, and lived to regret it.

Should we punish all convicted criminals by lengthening their sentences because some of them will re-offend? That's not a rhetorical question; it's a question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer. By lengthening sentences because some may re-offend aren't you handing out punishments that are in excess of what is fair for what they were convicted of? Isn't that judging and punishing every criminal for things that they haven't done? Moreover, if criminals are bound to re-offend, lengthening sentences does not stop crime from taking place, it just delays it (unless you intend to impose life sentences on all criminals).

I don't know what the right answer is. It's an interesting question that doesn't have any simple answers.