Re: “,” Oct. 30 news story.
Critics’ observations on penalties for habitual criminals are well-intended. Lifetime sentences for criminals “who have not harmed anyone” do sound harsh. However, even though they have not placed someone in the hospital or killed someone, they have done harm.
Theft, even if petty, has done harm to someone. Habitual theft has compounded the harm. Extended sentences for habitual criminals were intended to remove this harm from society since the criminal has not mastered enough self-control over the repeated harm he commits. Itap tough doing long sentences.
These people obviously would like a break from the humdrum of long sentences in prison. The problem is how long after being released will they remain “harmless” prior to committing another crime?
Habitual criminal sentencing was to break the chain of jail, release, followed by jail, release, etc. Perhaps we should just do away with jails altogether?
E. Charles Steinman, Highlands Ranch
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
