Blog Post #5

1. The opinion piece that I chose to write about is called “Make the time fit the crime” by the LA Times Editorial Board, written on November 19, 2013. The author explicitly states their opinion about the lengthy sentences given to nonviolent felons, also mentioning the flaws of the Three Strikes Law in CA. It is stated in the title itself that they believe that the time should fit the crime. They believe that “only the most dangerous offenders, chiefly those who would perpetrate violence, should be locked away forever.” They also made the point that imprisoning nonviolent people for life terms is “absurdly expensive” and “outrageously harsh.”

2. The anticipated objection that I found in the piece was the point that sentences are meant to be social retribution, and prisons provide education, skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, and substance abuse treatment. These rehabilitation programs help the felon to successfully reenter society as, hopefully, a changed person.The author makes a concession by stating that they are “a legitimate and necessary part of the justice system.” They also make the point, “It would be naive to believe that every offender, even every nonviolent offender, can be rehabilitated.”

3. I think that the people who may make this anticipated objection would be supporters of the Three Strikes Law in CA. They believe that it is good that these felons are kept off the streets because they obviously haven’t learned from the first two times, and who knows what they will do next.

4. The rebuttal that the author made to this objection was that it is not the best solution to lock up felons for unreasonably long periods because it clogs up prisons and wastes taxpayers dollars. They also say that unreasonably long sentences fail “to establish a coherent connection between the sentence and what it was supposed to accomplish.”