I heard Tony Abbott say recently that he wanted to make sure that judges were handing out appropriate sentences to offenders, where an appropriate sentence matches the public's outrage. In other words, he feels that the feeling of justice that the public receives is the reason that sentences are handed out.

Does anyone else feel this way?

I feel that the best way to treat criminals is to
(a) keep others safe from them, if they pose a danger
(b) find a way to stop them from posing a danger while limiting as few freedoms as possible

I know that some people are unsatisfied with the idea of 'helping the criminal', but I sincerely think that punishment for the sake of punishment is a polite way of saying vengeance.

But punishment is never about vengeance alone. From our earliest years we are taught by the method of rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad. It's a language everyone understands.
Remember the old saying from Lord Hewart about the importance of justice, being not only being done but seen to be done. The ripples of influence wash far beyond the original perpetrator of the crime.

Read the other post about the system protecting a killer. The criminal justice system is, in part, a replacement for individual action. If my family were killed and a jury said a man was guilty and a judge said, "Well, it's not really his fault," and gave him two years probation, I don't think I would accept that.

Deleted by Hunter

Public outrage as a meter for ensuring public view rather than social standards influence sentencing requires more public trials, encourages persecution, and leaves difficult matters in the hands of people whose mood cannot be determined as sentencing is handed down. The public are often poorly equipped to appreciate the full circumstances or handle their emotional responses in a case. My concern is the potential break down of structure.

Make sentencing merit based, give them a financial debt to both society and the victim, and work at under award wages if in prison for non-payment.

This would deter the jokers leaving education available to more serious offenders or those who feel their case was unfairly determined.

Ever been in a prison, Hunter?

Three square meals a day, dental care, optical care, medical care, gymnasiums, basketball courts, football grounds, computers, TV,

and all the "affection" you can handle, like it or not, from a few lifers who haven't seen a woman in a long time.

Deleted by Hunter

Deleted by Hunter

How about the added stigma of having a criminal record?
Surely it affects future employment prospects.
Should criminal records have a use by date like they do in countries like Austria?
Joseph Fritzel, the one who kept his daughter in a hidden dungeon had, had a previous rape record erased from his records after seven years, and went on to commit worse crimes.

For me, it depends on the crime and the individual circumstances. What it should not depend on is political favors. The biggest drug dealer in our town got two pardons because he turned out the vote for one party. When they had a governor in office, our drug dealer got a pardon.

I think some jobs, like working at a day car center, should require a criminal history check. I have known people convicted of crimes who went on to have successful and lawful lives but having a criminal conviction is not a plus on a job application.

Hunter mentions punishment, and questions whether or not criminals actually undergo anything resembling it. However, the point of the post is to query whether prison terms should be defined by the sense of public outrage. This could extend to say, Should punishment be defined by public emotion? That is, Is punishment a way to appease the public, or an actual useful tool in criminal reform? And which of these should it be?

Tony Abbott questions whether judges/magistrates are out of touch with the public, but possibly the public is out of touch with the justice system - they demand punishment of a certain level when it is not applicable. This covers prison terms, prison conditions, records, and so forth.

As far as I can see the most ethical outcome is for the maximal happiness/least suffering etc. for all the individuals involved, which includes the victims coping, understanding and moving forward with their lives, and the criminals becoming well-adjusted, healthy and harmless citizens.

_____
PS, I am actually the OP, but for some reason |evan> doesn't format well when logging in, so I am using this tag.