I do support the idea of reform. I just don’t understand how this meshes with imposed sentences. It would make more sense to me for it to be “okay you’re in jail until you’re reformed” if that’s the goal. Even if you want to impose a minimum sentence for reasons (perceived justice, punitive, deterrence) then you could say 7 years minimum, maximum forever unless considered “reformed”. Rather than saying 13 years but we really mean 7 lol.
I do see though that it could be a problem with my naive idea here in that is it really morally right to keep someone locked up indefinitely for a possibly “minor” crime? The reformation process and qualifications would have to be quite robust.
Anyway, just an idea. I’m sure smarter people that me know why it is the way that it is. Feel free to comment if you have more insight.
Exists in e.g. Germany for serious crimes under the name of preventive detention, which basically means that you stay under lock, but not prison conditions, even after your sentence. Consider it an asylum for the not criminally insane, that is, people who can understand guilt. Starts at about armed robbery, especially when recidivous. Even possible for youth offenders though exceedingly rare.
For less serious cases: Just because our justice system isn’t retributive doesn’t mean that deterrence isn’t a part of the equation, you don’t want to acquiesce Ocean’s 11-style “I did it because my wife left me and it’s not like she’s going to do that again” get out of jail free cards. Generally the threat of prison over here is a “screw your head on straight yourself or we’ll do it for you” kind of situation, e.g. it’s not optional to get used to holding a regular job when you’re in German prison, they’re deliberately building that routine and make sure you’ll have a skillset to get a job with.
Also life sentences always have the possibility of parole. Not offering people that possibility is actually against the European Convention on Human Rights, as it infringes on the free development of personality: By taking away the possibility of release, no matter how far off that may be, you right-out prevent people from bettering themselves. Minimum time until parole is 15 years, average hovers somewhere around 20 years. And yes you can get life and preventive detention, the evaluation criteria differ.
Very interesting comment. I would ask to compare the results to the US justice system but that’s an incredibly low bar. Do you have any insight into the results vs one of their peers who do not have this particular facet of the justice system? Or is there any data that shows if this works better than without it? Instinctually it would seem like it’s better but if there’s any data behind it I would love to read more.
Re: your comment on the life sentence without parole. I agree and I did not mean to insinuate that this should be a thing. I was more saying that there could be a minimum sentence for serious crimes and say you get 20 years but that means 20 minimum and release only if “rehabilitated”. Not “20” with parole in half that. I guess it’s just a matter of semantics but if it’s 20 but possibility to get out in half it should just be called 10 with release only possible after that if “rehabilitated”.
Do you have any insight into the results vs one of their peers who do not have this particular facet of the justice system?
Sweden, France and the UK don’t have that kind of system (e.g. Norway and Denmark have similar systems). They instead use longer sentences and do have higher crime rates but it’s going to be difficult to discern the impact from other factors.
At some point the distinction between longer sentences and preventive detention is semantics, but I’d say that preventive detention has the advantage of a) being less definitive, you often the court doesn’t impose it from the start but reserves the right to impose it later and if you’re behaving well you can dodge that bullet completely and b) inherently showing some mercy as it doesn’t impose prison conditions for the whole duration, making defiant non-cooperation less likely. Conditions aren’t always what they should be but once everything has been rebuilt etc. a preventive detention facility should look pretty much like a village with a fence around it, the only restrictions that are imposed on inmates are related to security (and side note security is managed quite differently in Germany too, compared to the US. Inmates tend to cook their own meals with their block neighbours (because getting used to routine) and yes they have knives. Figures that if you don’t treat people as animals they don’t act like animals).
I do support the idea of reform. I just don’t understand how this meshes with imposed sentences. It would make more sense to me for it to be “okay you’re in jail until you’re reformed” if that’s the goal. Even if you want to impose a minimum sentence for reasons (perceived justice, punitive, deterrence) then you could say 7 years minimum, maximum forever unless considered “reformed”. Rather than saying 13 years but we really mean 7 lol.
I do see though that it could be a problem with my naive idea here in that is it really morally right to keep someone locked up indefinitely for a possibly “minor” crime? The reformation process and qualifications would have to be quite robust.
Anyway, just an idea. I’m sure smarter people that me know why it is the way that it is. Feel free to comment if you have more insight.
Exists in e.g. Germany for serious crimes under the name of preventive detention, which basically means that you stay under lock, but not prison conditions, even after your sentence. Consider it an asylum for the not criminally insane, that is, people who can understand guilt. Starts at about armed robbery, especially when recidivous. Even possible for youth offenders though exceedingly rare.
For less serious cases: Just because our justice system isn’t retributive doesn’t mean that deterrence isn’t a part of the equation, you don’t want to acquiesce Ocean’s 11-style “I did it because my wife left me and it’s not like she’s going to do that again” get out of jail free cards. Generally the threat of prison over here is a “screw your head on straight yourself or we’ll do it for you” kind of situation, e.g. it’s not optional to get used to holding a regular job when you’re in German prison, they’re deliberately building that routine and make sure you’ll have a skillset to get a job with.
Also life sentences always have the possibility of parole. Not offering people that possibility is actually against the European Convention on Human Rights, as it infringes on the free development of personality: By taking away the possibility of release, no matter how far off that may be, you right-out prevent people from bettering themselves. Minimum time until parole is 15 years, average hovers somewhere around 20 years. And yes you can get life and preventive detention, the evaluation criteria differ.
Very interesting comment. I would ask to compare the results to the US justice system but that’s an incredibly low bar. Do you have any insight into the results vs one of their peers who do not have this particular facet of the justice system? Or is there any data that shows if this works better than without it? Instinctually it would seem like it’s better but if there’s any data behind it I would love to read more.
Re: your comment on the life sentence without parole. I agree and I did not mean to insinuate that this should be a thing. I was more saying that there could be a minimum sentence for serious crimes and say you get 20 years but that means 20 minimum and release only if “rehabilitated”. Not “20” with parole in half that. I guess it’s just a matter of semantics but if it’s 20 but possibility to get out in half it should just be called 10 with release only possible after that if “rehabilitated”.
Sweden, France and the UK don’t have that kind of system (e.g. Norway and Denmark have similar systems). They instead use longer sentences and do have higher crime rates but it’s going to be difficult to discern the impact from other factors.
At some point the distinction between longer sentences and preventive detention is semantics, but I’d say that preventive detention has the advantage of a) being less definitive, you often the court doesn’t impose it from the start but reserves the right to impose it later and if you’re behaving well you can dodge that bullet completely and b) inherently showing some mercy as it doesn’t impose prison conditions for the whole duration, making defiant non-cooperation less likely. Conditions aren’t always what they should be but once everything has been rebuilt etc. a preventive detention facility should look pretty much like a village with a fence around it, the only restrictions that are imposed on inmates are related to security (and side note security is managed quite differently in Germany too, compared to the US. Inmates tend to cook their own meals with their block neighbours (because getting used to routine) and yes they have knives. Figures that if you don’t treat people as animals they don’t act like animals).
In Canada it exists for certain crimes but not all
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Canada