Some Things Make No Sense

I am sure you are all aware of Josef Fritzl and his murder/slavery/incest/rape trial. If by some chance you don't, there are some news articles that give the back story here, here and here.

So since you are now all fully enraged by what this man has done to his daughter, let's discuss his punishment. If he is convicted of everything except the murder charge, under Austrian law he faces a maximum 20 years imprisonment. I assume that gets further reduced by standard methods common to Canada and the US. This means he will end up spending at most 7 or 8 years behind bars. Considering the punishment is for imprisoning his daughter for 24 years, how does that make any sense at all? He will get to see daylight each and every day. His daughter was denied daylight for 24 years. He will likely spend only 1 day behind bars for every 3 he kept his daughter locked up for. I mean that doesn't even consider the fact that if convicted of all charges except murder, he did a hell of a lot more then just confine his daughter. I am assuming that the same sentencing restrictions are present whether he confined her for 1 month, or 24 years.

Now this is a result of two massive flaws with the Austrian justice system, and while Austria may be a fair distance away, similar problems exist within our own system. In Austria when convicted of multiple offenses all time is served concurrently. Which means you pay the price for the worst crime you committed, and get a free pass on every other crime. So I guess the lesson is, if your going to get caught for a crime in Austria, might as well get some freebies in there as well. In Canada and the States, this same ability to get a free pass exists, although it is up to the Judges to implement it. Serving time concurrently is the single largest flaw in Crime and Punishment. I understand there are instances where serving concurrent time is in the best interests of Justice, but having it be common practice, or worst yet, the law (in Austria) is insane.

Now generally I am of the opinion that stiffer sentences do not equate to deterrence or have any real effect on reducing crime. The justice system is generally trying to achieve three goals. One, punish the offender by removing freedom. Two, restitution to the victim where possible. Three, rehabilitation. Canada has a good balance between these three directives. Using murder rates as a comparison (since that is really the only reliable way of comparing crime rates between jurisdictions with differing classifications) in 2000 the Murder rate in the United States was three times the murder rate in Canada. But while increasing the punishment for individual crimes is clearly not the answer, I don't see how this translates in giving perpetrators of crime sprees a free pass for all but their worst.