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.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
