I'd like to second, third, and fourth this.
Every time I argue that less-harsh sentences are the better ones that all should receive, I hear this: "leniency for all requires severity for all first."
This strikes me as a complete miscomprehension of the politics of punishment.
Every time I argue that less-harsh sentences are the better ones that all should receive, I hear this: "leniency for all requires severity for all first."
This strikes me as a complete miscomprehension of the politics of punishment.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1348661205359947781
Once you pass a harsh law, it's really hard to be That Guy who repeals it.
It's also why I think we should emphasize leniency when DAs set plea deals over expanding parole.* It's easier to set a shorter sentence up front than shorten a long one.
It's also why I think we should emphasize leniency when DAs set plea deals over expanding parole.* It's easier to set a shorter sentence up front than shorten a long one.
When Obama commuted Chelsea Mannings sentence, there was a lot of outrage.
But it was fascinating outrage. No one that I saw said "7 years is too short." Everyone said "1/3 of her 21 years is too short."
If the orig sentence had been 8 yrs, bet far far less outrage.
But it was fascinating outrage. No one that I saw said "7 years is too short." Everyone said "1/3 of her 21 years is too short."
If the orig sentence had been 8 yrs, bet far far less outrage.
We anchor, strongly, to the current sentence. So one we ratchet it up, pulling it back down won't be seen as some sort of "restoration," it'll be seen as "leniency."
And leniency triggers two really hard to surmount political hurdles:
And leniency triggers two really hard to surmount political hurdles:
First, and more obv, unlike severity it is vulnerable to the Horton Effect. One bad case of leniency, and the change faces intense criticism.
But we can't "see" the excess severity (how do you show Bob wouldn't have reoffended had he been let out sooner), so it's immune to this.
But we can't "see" the excess severity (how do you show Bob wouldn't have reoffended had he been let out sooner), so it's immune to this.
Second, moves in a more lenient direction are required to provide substantial empirical justification that is NEVER asked of severity.
Every reform has to justified. But we have no--none, zero, not a one--good cost-benefit analysis of prisons. Not a one. No one (in power) cares.
Every reform has to justified. But we have no--none, zero, not a one--good cost-benefit analysis of prisons. Not a one. No one (in power) cares.
If you want to embrace severity for severity's sake, fine. It's a legit normative position (albeit one I DEF don't share).
But don't think that cracking down on white protestors is the first step in a path towards less-harsh racial equality.
It is... not that.
But don't think that cracking down on white protestors is the first step in a path towards less-harsh racial equality.
It is... not that.
Also worth asking how much deterrence it'll get us.
A giant phalanx of cops in the Capitol would have been a far better deterrent to future insurrections than the botched prevention + some convictions later.
A giant phalanx of cops in the Capitol would have been a far better deterrent to future insurrections than the botched prevention + some convictions later.
* (Forgot I footnoted something above): To be clear, we should expand parole TOO. I'm not anti-parole. But the politics of back-end reductions vs. front-end shortening are quite different, and we should prioritize the latter in the long run. (And this whole debate is an ex why.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
