You said — “Think about it. What the heck is ten years incarceration going to accomplish that 5 years can’t?”
Well, I’m saying the following, under the assumption that the state does not take anyone’s life unless they have taken someone else’s life. That would be my first rule for that sort of thing.
And then, having said that — the *purpose* that would be served by 10 years, as compared to 5 years, is keeping someone “off the street” for that much longer, until they reach an age where they can’t do what they did before...
Age does that to people... LOL...
So your view is that the purpose of incarceration is to take a person out of circulation??
My opinion is that’s kinda sick and demented. I say incarceration is a punishment to teach a person a lesson. The system is broken currently, obviously. The time incarcerated is way too pleasant. They don’t learn their lesson. Ideally, a person learns their lesson(tough love) and is released WITH NO FURTHER DEBT TO SOCIETY. All rights and privileges restored 100%. the faster they can start paying taxes and being productive, the better. And if they are paying taxes and working their butts off, then DON’T LIMIT THEIR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
That is a little too much to hope for, I realize. But we can get somewhat close to that, I think.
So, if incarceration is a learning experience, not merely a way to get rid of people, then what the hell is a 10 year or a 20 year sentence supposed to accomplish that a 5 year sentence cannot? If you seriously think they need to be taken out of circulation, then it’s way more sensible to take them out permanently...ie death.
I’m serious here. No joking. Where is my logic failing?