Should the potential for future criminal activity be used in sentencing?

2015-08-04T19:48:36-04:00

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/prison-reform-risk-assessment/

This article passed my feed, and thought I would share.

I can see many aspects of this, but would love the community's opinion.

I believe we make similar "recommendations" for action under the UCMJ based on this concept, therefore the parallels exist.

Should Prison Sentences Be Based On Crimes That Haven’t Been Committed Yet?

The new science of sentencing.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 4 at 2015 7:53 PM

2015-08-04T19:53:38-04:00

In my opinion, NO. People should be judged on their actions and intent, and not on their thoughts, ("hate" crimes), or upon someone else's assessment, or prognostication if what could, or might happen in the future.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Aug 4 at 2015 8:01 PM

2015-08-04T20:01:43-04:00

No. Essentially convicting someone for crimes they haven't committed is a rabbit hole I don't want to go down.

I am less averse to identifying people with dangerous mental illness and getting them appropriate care, but even that needs controls.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 8:17 PM

2015-08-04T20:17:58-04:00

Normally I would say the answer is no... however there have got to be some consideration of potential danger to the community.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 4 at 2015 8:28 PM

2015-08-04T20:28:27-04:00

Its a terrible concept that opens up a huge can of worms.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Aug 4 at 2015 8:47 PM

2015-08-04T20:47:37-04:00

The concept is asinine. What's next? Thought police?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 11:26 PM

2015-08-04T23:26:32-04:00

Why not use statistics to figure out who's going to commit crime and lock them up beforehand? I did read the article start to finish, and it's a bad plan. I understand the idea, and there are some good aspects, but this has good idea fairy all over it.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 11:43 PM

2015-08-04T23:43:39-04:00

I think a great deal of this already takes place, preconceived notions or bias infused in judgments. However, I would like to think that personal choices can still trump circumstances and environments.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 5 at 2015 2:32 AM

2015-08-05T02:32:02-04:00

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Sergeant; I really don't like the sound of this one. It's positively Orwellian.

Personally I'd prefer a system of graduated mandatory minimum sentences along the line of:

1st offence - the entire range of sentencing options (including the "Absolute Discharge" and "Conditional Discharge" which the Canadians have legislated) - the remainder of the maximum amount of imprisonment time which could have been imposed had the maximum term of imprisonment been imposed would be 'set aside'

2nd offence - as for 1st offence EXCEPT that no "Absolute Discharge" would be available - the remainder of the maximum amount of imprisonment time which could have been imposed had the maximum term of imprisonment been imposed would be 'set aside'

3rd offence - as for 2nd offence EXCEPT that no "Conditional Discharge" would be available - the remainder of the maximum amount of imprisonment time which could have been imposed had the maximum term of imprisonment been imposed would be 'set aside'

4th offence - as for 3rd offence EXCEPT that a sentence of imprisonment of not less than 10% of the maximum available would have to be imposed - the remainder of the maximum amount of imprisonment time which could have been imposed had the maximum term of imprisonment been imposed would be 'set aside'

5th offence - as for 4th offence EXCEPT that a sentence of imprisonment of not less than 20% of the maximum available would have to be imposed - the remainder of the maximum amount of imprisonment time which could have been imposed had the maximum term of imprisonment been imposed would be 'set aside'

6th offence - as for 5th offence EXCEPT that a sentence of imprisonment of not less than 40% of the maximum available would have to be imposed - the remainder of the maximum amount of imprisonment time which could have been imposed had the maximum term of imprisonment been imposed would be 'set aside'

7th offence - as for 6th offence EXCEPT that a sentence of imprisonment of the maximum available would have to be imposed - the remainder of the maximum amount of imprisonment time which could have been imposed had the maximum term of imprisonment been imposed would be 'set aside'

8th (and subsequent) offence - as for 7th offence EXCEPT that all time "set aside" for all previous offences would have to be served prior to the commencement of a sentence of imprisonment of the maximum available.

IN ALL CASES the burden of proving that the convicted person SHOULD NOT receive a sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term allowed by law would be on the Defence - the burden of proof would be "balance of probabilities" and not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

That may seem pretty wimpy, but consider what would happen to someone who was convicted eight times for a crime that had a maximum sentence of five years but received the minimum available punishment on each of the first seven convictions. Their minimum sentence would be (5 + 5 + 5 + 4.5 + 4 + 3 + 0 + 5) 31.5 years in jail (which is exactly what they would have had to serve had they received the maximum sentence on each preceding conviction.

I'd be quite content to see that scheme apply to only violent crimes, crimes in which weapons are used (even if only to intimidate), and crimes involving entering other people's residences.

I'm also reminded of the findings of the authors of (I believe it was) "The Complete Swindler" who found that the vast majority of people involved in petty crime had made "the best career choice actually available to them at the time", and would prefer to see some sort of penal/rehabilitation system set up where those types of people could be taught the value of solid "work skills" (which aren't the same as "job skills") so that they would actually be able to make more money without resorting to crime than they could through low level criminal activities. [Unfortunately that would mean that someone's sentence could not be of any fixed length since they would actually have to "work their way out of jail" and some people would take much longer to do that than others.]

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 5 at 2015 7:11 AM

2015-08-05T07:11:13-04:00

I am not a proponent of this. Mostly because as nice as statistics and data are they will be interpreted by human beings and human beings will make these decisions on "potential". Pointy headed, think tank, consultant types from Ivy league schools will have another way to go after population they may not like.

I think it has been pretty well proven that most of the violent crime in this country is committed by a small percentage of the population. We need to do a better job of keeping these folks locked up. We have to be willing to throw the book at repeat offenders. Take down the cost of the corrections system (maybe we should stop calling it corrections) by having more Spartan facilities and make them places with zero comforts, you know, a place you would never want to go back to.

While almost all of us would never want to be in prison, the thought of being locked up is anathema, there is a segment of society that can operate in that environment and successfully.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 7:28 AM

2015-08-05T07:28:38-04:00

Sounds like yet another mechanism by which the corporate prison system can ensure the cells stay full and our tax dollars end up in their wallets.

Response by 2ndLt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 8:13 AM

2015-08-05T08:13:46-04:00

Someone's been watching one too many Tom Cruise movies.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Aug 5 at 2015 9:43 AM

2015-08-05T09:43:51-04:00

Regardless of crime, you cannot sentence a person based on something that has not happened. It is a slap in the face to everything that is American. America is about redemption, rising above adversity, and becoming better. To sentence someone based on what might happen is akin to saying "We think you are a piece of shit that is not capable of change. We are just going to get rid of you." If that is the case, why not just execute those people? I know it sounds extreme, but by sentencing someone based on what they may do after release, essentially it is saying that prison is not going to rehabilitate you. If that is the case, why should the taxpayers be burdened by an individual who is believed to not be capable of becoming a productive member of society.
Nobody would say that. Nobody would say at a sentencing hearing to an individual. Why? Simple, in America we do believe people can change and overcome. So the whole principle of pre-crime sentencing is ridiculous.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 6 at 2015 3:47 AM

2015-08-06T03:47:44-04:00

This sounds straight out of George Orwell's 1984!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 12:37 AM

2015-08-10T00:37:09-04:00

There are too many variables to consider in order to create a means to fairly measure the likelihood that an individual will probably commit a crime in the future. The system discussed in the article arbitrarily assigns more points to some people based on gender and whether or not that person lives in an urban environment. That means in Pennsylvania where this is being implemented males living in a city are more likely to have a longer sentence than other individuals. Creating programs to help people who were incarcerated integrate back into society would have a stronger impact on reducing recidivism.