As a prison chaplain, I got used to many recently-released inmates ending up back behind bars within a short time. The staff used to moan and bitch about it constantly. Many times we had to release somebody whom we knew – knew, beyond a shadow of doubt – would re-offend within days or weeks. What’s worse is that we knew some of them would hurt, perhaps maim, even kill their soon-to-be-victims. However, the law took no account of how they’d behaved during their time behind bars, and wasn’t interested in our knowledge of their criminal potential. If their sentences were over, we had to let them go . . . and start counting the days until they were rearrested.
US courts began to address this problem with the ‘habitual offender’ statutes that came into vogue a couple of decades ago. If a criminal had a record of several prior felonies, the DA or other prosecuting authority could apply for a much longer sentence than his present crime might warrant, on the grounds that he or she was an habitual offender. This has helped to keep some of the bad guys from reoffending, because they’re serving long terms in the slammer: but the civil libertarians and bleeding-heart liberals continually complain about such laws. They’ve never had to deal with the consequences of letting such inmates loose on society, that’s clear . . .
A report from Britain indicates that they’re having the same problem with repeat offenders over there.
Incredibly, 42 per cent of criminals found guilty but given an absolute discharge [i.e. no punishment] by courts last year had 15 or more previous convictions.
So had 29 per cent of those given a conditional discharge, 26 per cent of those fined, 27 per cent of those who received a community punishment and 26 per cent of those whose sentences were suspended.
There’s more at the link.
I have a small suggestion for those worried about ‘habitual offender’ statutes and the long – I admit, sometimes unreasonably long – sentences they entail for someone whose current offense may be relatively small. How about this? Let’s dish out the sentence that the crime(s) deserve, precisely and exactly as the law lays down; and then let’s add one year to the sentence for each and every prior felony conviction, plus six months for each and every prior misdemeanor conviction. If you steal a chocolate bar, you get convicted of misdemeanor theft. Your punishment for that crime alone might be a slap on the wrist (like being fined enough to pay for it): but your five felony and seven misdemeanor prior convictions mean that you also get an 8½-year prison sentence. Next time (since this is your eighth misdemeanor conviction) you’ll get nine years on top of whatever sentence your next crime attracts.
This way, someone with no prior offenses (or only a few) will draw a relatively light sentence, and will hopefully be able to learn from his mistakes. Those who can’t or won’t learn from their mistakes will make more of them, and their time behind bars will get longer, and longer, and longer . . . until society no longer has to worry about them at all. The revolving door will simply stop revolving for them.
Seems fair to me. What say you, readers?
Peter
One of the most sensible ideas I've heard. Common sense is a virtue, and you've got it in spades.
I'd like to see that passed into law!
STxRynn
My idea is that sentencing should be cumulative. If prior to your current 5 year sentence you also served 2 years for one crime, 6 months for another and 35 days for a third, then your total sentence this time will be 7 years, 6 months and 35 days.
However, I think this should apply only for jail time sentenced, and not for fines assessed or other such nonsense.
I'll vote for it.
LittleRed1
Possible perverse incentive: a former violent felon with a hankering for five-finger-discounted-whiskey might not blink at roughing up the guy behind the counter…he's gonna do long time, so he might as well earn it.
However, a simple count-on-your-fingers method of adding "habitual offender" points to your visit at the GrayBar Hotel might be easier for Johnny Hood to compute than arguing with himself about whether or not the "habitual offender" stuff he's done will take effect in the jurisdiction he's in now…
It's an idea.
Or we could just execute those who prove that they are unable to live in a civilized society.
Tacking a year (non paroleable) for each prior felony conviction seems a reasonable way to rack up habitual offender status, without the same risk as "3 strikes and life" guidelines.
Bumping that to TWO years for previous felonies #6 through #10 also provides escalation. After #10, I say, life without possibility of parole.
Especially in states without the death penalty (whether via statute, or just because they never seem to "get around to it"), knowing that going down for a $200 non violent theft means a LIFE sentence, escalating to avoid apprehension and conviction becomes a RATIONAL choice for a predator.
For teh chap who has racked up 10 felony convictions already, that risk is irrelevant, becuase we have pretty good evidence he is not going to successfully rehabilitae anyway, so it's time for perpetual quarentine.
no way, no how. a felony used to be something serious. These days, we hand out felonies like candy. Someone even wrote a book about it. so, count me on the 'no' side of the fence.
The problem is that longer jail terms are not a deterrent to crime. The justice system needs to find a new sentencing system that effectively deters crime. Mandatory sentences, longer sentences, and even the death penalty do not work.
I read a paper that proposed that the most important factor in effectiveness of deterrence is not length of punishment, but time between crime committed and when they are punished, and perceived chance of getting caught.
In other words, if a criminal thinks they won't get caught, then they don't care about the punishment. They need to think that when they commit a crime, they will be caught, and it needs to happen that their brain connects the crime to the punishment.
As soon as being a habitual criminal lands such people cold in the ground more often, crime will being a losing proposition.
Jim