None of what you claim follows.Your position is incoherent. If increasing the length of the sentence creates more of a deterrent, then knowing the length of the potential sentence is necessary, even if you think the sentence is going to be effectively reduced.It doesn't entail knowing the sentence. Knowing that the State you committed the crime in regularly releases people much earlier than the nominal sentence time is enough.You are claiming without a shred of supporting evidence that this person knew before he committed the crime for which he was convicted that he would not serve the entire sentence even though he would not known that sentence prior to his initial criminal act?I'm claiming the exact opposite. Whatever sentence he thought he would get, he'd have known it was nominal and not actual.Are you seriously claiming that he knew he would serve the 10 years when he committed his original crime?But it wasn't a ten year sentence, was it?...A ten year sentence did not deter this person from their original crime. Why would anyone think the potential of a criminal conviction after release would have been a deterrent?Evidently you don't understand. Derec said:I don't understand. Is Derec saying that if the guy had done the full ten year term he would not have done something like this when he got out?
If California had not been so lax on the shooter previously, he might have found the potential of criminal conviction a stronger deterrent.but very lax on actually holding criminals responsible for their crimes.
People committing criminal acts don't know the exact sentence they will get if they are caught, but they do know they are committing a criminal act, that they can be punished for it, and the general class of punishment they might get.
Once somebody has received a sentence, longer sentences would be more of a deterrence for future acts than shorter ones.
The people of California paid a much higher price than money in this instance.In essence, you are tacitly agreeing that the length of a sentence is not a deterrent.
The OP's argument is that this criminal would not have been free to commit this alleged crime if he had still been serving his sentence. That is absolutely true. However, his release is due to the lack of prison space. Clearly, the people of California through their democratic process do not wish to allocate their scarce resources into expanding prison capacity.