I've read the article carefully, and I'm afraid I entirely disagree. Research on crime and punishment is what I do for a living, and I find it very hard to relate to anecdotal material such as the cases related in the article. Nevertheless, I believe that the other side of the argument - supported by extensive sound research - should not be cast aside for vindictiveness and fear.

The handful of cases presented in the article, so as to support a supposed "trend" in violence, are extremely atypical. Any analysis of the types of crime brought before courts - in Israel and abroad - will show that vicious murders such as that of the taxi driver, though undoubtedly horrifying and shocking, are extremely rare. Most homicides occur in very different contexts. And homicides do not nearly constitute such a significant share in the world of crime. I would therefore be very, very cautious, to express such a punitive approach toward crime in general.

Even limiting the argument to homicide itself, I have several times commented in this forum about the questionable nature of the deterrent article. I also don't believe much in incapacitation, for both economic and moral reasons. Research conducted in the 1980s about rehabilitation pointed to the problematic nature of those problems, but they don't make things any worse than incapacitation does - and they are much cheaper.

As to the author's observations about the nature of imprisonment, I sadly have to disagree again. I have visited various corrective institutions in connection with my practical and academic work, and, though the conditions certainly differ between different institutions, I find it very hard to wish the horrible experience of incarceration on anyone. My main argument against mass imprisonment is a utilitarian, though: prisons have become warehouses which do not do much to eradicate crime - in any way - and which absorb resources which could be implemented into social welfare - a movement which might do much more for crime than incarceration.

This is, of course, not to say that the handful of crimes paraded in the article are not heinous and horrible. They are. But this type of argument, and particularly the numerous cheerful responses after it - make me very afraid. They remind me of cheering audiences before the gallows in Early-Modern Europe. I would like to see more sound data, a more thorough analysis, and last but not least - some compassion for the numerous people subjected to the system, whose cases are more multifaceted than those presented here.

For anyone interested in another perspective (and I hope there are such folks around), I strongly recommend David Garland's new book The Culture of Control.

You haven't been mugged yet, huh?

I'm sorry to shatter the stereotypes, but yes, I actually have been a victim of crime. I just make a distinction between my personal experiences and my professional opinion, which is based on sound research and not on my private case. Naturally, when this happens to you personally you are shocked; but policies made based on such personal reactions tend toward the unmeasured and perhaps draconic. When folks launch into policy discussions based on emotional anecdotes, it makes me concerned.

I stand corrected. Please receive my apology.

True; I'll try and find some time to supply data as a basis for discussion. Since I do have a life outside cybserspace (really!) it might take a while, but I'll do my best to come back with some of it.

I really, really , really dislike Third Strike types of rules. Any sentencing mechanism that limits flexibility leads to problems, errors, and inhumane assumptions, unless it's very carefully designed. Even sentencing guidelines have their faults. If anyone wants to read more, Frank Zimring has a great book out about Three Strikes rules.

As I suspected, I think we're talking about two very different levels of discussing data, and observing them from perspectives that don't facilitate dialogue. Based on anecdotes about serious crime, you suggest that the Israeli policies about corrections are wrong, and lead to the release of dangerous criminals. I have yet to see the evidence supporting this claim (and I mean serious research, not unsubstantiated anecdotes). I'm sorry to repeat myself, but saying "Beni Sela" five hundred times doesn't make him into five hundred rapists.

I also have yet to see clear distinctions between the various institutions you call "the system" and their input on what is happening. You accuse the Ministry of Law, and judges, of things that are under the authority of correctional offices, and vice versa. I fail to understand what you mean by "the demand to develop a public mechanism". Isn't that the judicial system?

But suppose we do want to focus on the judicial system: there's also the issue of errors in judgment. Your article focuses on one side of possible judicial errors (and yes, judges are not infallible): lenient sentencing of dangerous criminals. The other side, which is hidden from the part of the public with which you align yourself in the article(the innocent society, which includes potential victims of crime; will it surprise you to hear that every second Israeli citizen has a police record?), is that of making a mistake in the opposite direction: harshly sentencing someone who, in fact, isn't all that dangerous. Naturally, the harmful consequences of not investing in the person are hidden, because they occur behind bars or after the sentence is served, but that does not mean they do not happen.

There's more to say, but I confess I'm put out by some of your unpleasant ad-hominem insinuations. This is precisely where I didn't want this discussion to go, and certainly not where I want to spend my energy. If this is what we're doing here, I think I'll pass. As to the comments about liberals and the comforts of the grave, I should think that for the benefit of fruitful argument it'd be best to leave those aside.

This is a pretty hot issue in the last few years, and there's various considerations that should be taken into account. When a prison is privatized, the company which manages it provides a service. This service can be better or worse than services provided by the state, and that would depend a lot on what kind of prison it is, what industries it relies on, etc. While I'm not completely opposed to privatization, what concerns me is that this might lead to merely economic considerations which would not do much to reduce crime. On the other hand, with proper regulation, it may free resources to fight poverty, encourage social welfare, etc. - not that it's guaranteed to work that way for all institutions.

The institutions I've come across were all public - civilian and military prisons in Israel, and San Quentin prison in California, so I haven't seen a private prison firsthand, only read about them.

In Israel, the decision is made by the correctional services (I believe the judge can make recommendations). In the US, since prisons are classified according to their security level, sending someone to a certain level of prison can be plea-bargained.

1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Re...

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Re...