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.