Short sentences, they believe, don't work and cost too much ... In 2007, nearly 60 per cent of prisoners given sentences of under 12 months reoffended within two years, whereas those put away for longer reoffended far less frequently. Does it follow that short sentences should be abolished?Well, sort of. The article goes on to argue along rehabilitative lines, suggesting that keeping offenders in prison longer would allow those "from dysfunctional backgrounds that offered them little moral guidance while growing up" to be educated in the social norms of our society.
Would this work? Possibly, but if that is the case then, extending the logic a little further, I have a better suggestion.
Don't set any limits on a prison sentence.
Not only would this allow inmates to be kept inside until such a time they were deemed to be no longer a threat, it would provide an added punitive and act as further deterrence to potential criminals. After all, who wants to get locked up for an indefinite period? Plenty of career criminals may see a 6 month sentence as an occupational hazard; if they had no idea how long they would be in there they may think differently.
A solution that satisfies fans of a punitive and rehabilitative system both!(?)
How much sarcasm is there in this article? I haven't quite decided yet...
