Abstract
This article argues that indeterminate sentencing is the optimal means of preventing recidivism among sex offenders, both as an instrumental matter and jurisprudentially. Once a person is convicted of an offense, the duration and nature of sentence should be based on a back-end decision made by experts in recidivism reduction, within broad ranges set by the legislature. This position is defended against a number of objections, including claims that such a system relies on flawed risk assessments, ignores societal views of justice, denigrates offenders and victims, undermines deterrence and norm enforcement, depends too heavily on costly, uneven and demoralizing risk management schemes, and, as a result of one or more of these objections, is unconstitutional.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
