Not sure quite where to put this, but there does seem to be a deterrent or causal effect in drug prison sentencing vs murder/assault sentencing. As the punishments for the former increased in comparison to the latter, drug dealers became more violent and likely to murder, as threatening/beating up/killing the witness became a more intelligent course of action than just taking the punishment for drug dealing.
Arguably a lot of the problems in the inner cities are caused by punishing drug possession as a worse crime than murder.
Yes, I said worse, in Alaska they had to let murderers out after 3 years to make room for the mandatory 10-20 year sentences for pot possession.
Something seriously wrong with the bottom of that picture. Did the guard give him an axe (presumably the one used in his crime) back when the prisoner was released?
Simple answer – because the goal is not the elimination of crime, but the reduction of crime in proportion to the degree to which it is damaging to society. Shorter sentences mean more “churn”, so at any given moment a smaller percentage of offenders are removed; longer sentences mean that a higher percentage of offenders are removed. This allows the State to truly balance individual freedom with societal benefits. We *knowingly* allow there to be “acceptable” levels of certain crimes as a way to protect freedoms.