Adequate Deterrence, 6-20-2010

This follows the post on United States v. Dorvee and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)

I have three questions about deterrence.

First: is 12 years in prison more than an adequate deterrence for me, a fifty-year old without any prior criminal history?

Second: why is a five-year prison sentence inadequate for deterring me, a fifty-year old without any prior criminal history?

Third: who is being deterred, me or you?

As for my answers about myself:

1. I am already deterred, but then I had gotten bored with what I was doing and if I had not intended to use my criminal activity for my own purposes, I would have walked away from it all. Sobriety does help one see one's insanity.
2. Probation coupled with a good anti-depressant would insure no further violations of the law.

From what I see of the others here charged with the same crime, I think probation would leave them adequately deterred. The sentences offered by the government, in all our cases, go beyond what is needed for deterrence. The statutory minimum would have been as great a shock, just as much of a shaking up of their worlds, to be an adequate deterrent.

Assuming five years will deter me and my fellow detainees, that the government has no evidence that we are so dangerous as to require a more stringent shock to our system, I say that the government thinks our sentences will deter others besides ourselves. I would not mind being a sacrifice if the government did a better job of informing the public of the law's penalties.

Since the government does little about properly informing the public about the law's penalties, little deterrence truly exists. The government issues press releases, so they have the means to implement an effective deterrence. If they are inadequate for deterrence, then why are they issued? The government issues press releases for the benefit of pressure groups and the politicians who set their budgets. Therefore, the government's proposed sentences have nothing to do with deterrence.

sch

[Ah, what twelve plus years and internet access does for me. Deterrence will remain an issue up to and including my sentencing hearing. Do keep an eye out for that entry, it will be in the nearer future. My judge only reinforced my opinion that deterrence is an empty concept. In law school, my criminal law professor stated that deterrence was one of the goals of the criminal law. The law also assumed each defendant was a rational actor. From my own behavior, I can say rationality was a ghost haunting my memory. My vanity is pleased by my being coherent enough to see and understand the absurdity of what I was going through. The internet lets me confirm the emptiness of my sentence as deterring others by allowing me to check up on the same kind of case in the Southern District of Indiana. If I was to be a sacrifice, I would like to have been a useful one. Secondly, also from the internet, I found a Georgia State University Law Review article from 2013 describing the use of the Sentencing Guidelines up to that date. They have been known to be problematic for quite some time now (in particular, I like the section starting at page 405 of the article). Changing them is politically incorrect, but is necessary. sch 12/10/22.]

 

 

 Feel free to leave any answers you might ahve below in the comments section.