Topic > Compare and contrast between determinate and indeterminate...

Indeterminate sentences are sentences that have a minimum and maximum period to be served and only a releasing authority can release an offender within the range of that sentence. An example of an indeterminate sentence is if an offender has been sentenced to five to ten years in prison, then the offender cannot do less than five and no more than ten. After reaching the minimum number of years, the offender has the opportunity to appear before the parole board for early release. If parole is denied, the offender must do the maximum which, in this case, would be ten years and be released unconditionally. Determinate sentences are fixed sentences. An example of a determinate sentence is if an offender is sentenced to twenty years, then the offender must serve the full twenty years before being eligible for release. I personally think that both of these models are appropriate. I do not believe that a person who has intentionally killed or raped someone should be entitled to the indeterminate sentencing model. I believe that people have the right to change and be rehabilitated within the system, but I am not convinced that they deserve to be released before their full sentence has been served. If a person kills someone out of anger and is sentenced to ten to fifteen years, and is released let's say eleven years after the crime and has completely changed. This is a wonderful thing, but is it fair to the victim's family or even the victim? On the other hand, what would happen if a family man was jailed for bank fraud and sentenced to ten years? It has a specific sentence. He is released after ten years of service and has not changed and has returned to his old habits of bank fraud. The crime may not have been as serious as murder, but that leaves me wondering what the point of incarceration was without the offender actually being rehabilitated? I mixed it