DiPeitro is pushing a one-sided agenda that only looks at one aspect of sentencing criteria: rehabilitation of the offender.  Alaska codified the goals of sentencing in AS 12.55.005, like: community condemnation, effect on the victim, deterring other or the defendant, likelihood of rehabilitation etc.

It’s easy to say that it costs us $160/day to house someone who stole $300 worth of stuff and therefore incarceration is not cost-effective.  What’s hard to quantify is: the damage to the community, the effect on a victim, the condemnation of the public, the benefit in deterring others. But what if cost to the victim can be quantified, and community condemnation can be quantified.  Maybe $160/day is then money well spent?

Perhaps we need to direct the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission to come up with some data to quantify all the other elements considered at sentencing; then when we’re talking about someone’s conduct we can truly compare and apple with an apple.