Is it really only a 2x factor? I'd have to dig up some numbers, but my impression was more like a 5-10x differential, even going by actual sentences, not maximums. For example, 98% of sentences in Denmark are 24 months or less; it's very difficult for the prosecution to get a multi-year sentence except in exceptional circumstances (serious violent crimes, career criminals on their 3rd or 4th trial, etc.). My impression (possibly incorrect?) is that the U.S. much more frequently makes use of severe sentences in the 5+ year range, even for nonviolent property crimes, or drug-possession offenses.

I think I recall a study arguing that the massive disparity in sentence lengths, rather than rate of arrest/conviction, was the main contributor to the U.S.'s very large prison population. I.e. Europeans also arrest and convict people, but they don't keep them in prison for multi-year lengths nearly as often.

See the chart on page 2 of this report: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents....

The U.S. is generally less than 2x relative to Australia, 2-3x relative to the U.K., and 3-5x relative to Finland. The sentences for assaults show the most differential, I'd imagine because of very strict sentencing for sexual assaults.

I think the averages skew higher in the U.S. than typical sentences than it does in other countries. Initiatives like California's "three strikes law",[1] that result in life sentences for three potentially non-violent felonies dramatically skew up the averages in the U.S. I don't think any of the major European countries have anything comparable. If you took out the ridiculous sentences handed down as a result of those laws, I think the differential would be much less.

[1] If you want to get worked up about something, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle.

Those 30+ years sentences for small crimes do sound scary when they try to get people to accept the plea bargain. My guess is this is one of the main reasons why these sort of silly sentences are kept.

I'm not sure what the solution might be. I think its an excellent feature of the system that a judge, who can see the whole situation in front of him, is empowered to set sentences instead of a legislature that must necessarily speak in general terms. My preferred solution would be to get rid of statutory sentences and sentencing guidelines and instead just have a couple of maximums (20 years for a non-homicide crime, life/death for homicide). But that wouldn't stop prosecutors from bullying a defendant into accepting a plea deal by arguing "the judge could sentence you to up to 20 years!"

The other solution, less discretion in the hands of the judge is, I think, worse. Americans are not a compassionate people to criminals. It's easy for a voter and a legislator to call for 20 years or 30 years for a crime. Much harder for a judge sitting in front of a real human being to do that. So if you move discretion more to the statutory process, I think you'll get the opposite of the desired result.

The concept of a plea bargain (as far as I understand it) is quite messed up but so entrenched in the American legal system that to make that suggestion I assume would get either blank stares or calls of one's insanity and possibly 'subversive commie associations' or whatever... What the hell though. "We're going to throw the book at you and show no mercy, but if you say you did it you'll go a bit lighter." Seriously that has no place in a trial.

The plea bargain is the result of a couple of forces in the criminal justice system:

1) The vast majority of people accused are, factually, guilty. You hear about the edge cases in the news where someone is convicted on flimsy evidence, but for each one of those there are a dozen people who did what they are accused of doing, and the police have ample proof. They blew a 0.20 on the breathalyzer while driving, they were found with a pound of cocaine in their trunk, the police were called to the scene while they were beating up their wife, etc. The premise of plea bargaining is that it makes sense to allow those people to plead guilty and save the public the expense of a trial.

2) There are too many criminals and not enough public defenders and prosecutors. If 90% of cases didn't end in plea bargains, the system couldn't process all the accused. Part of the problem is that we've criminalized too much behavior--thank the drug war for that. But it's not just drugs. Large and medium-sized U.S. cities have 5-20x the murder rate of major European cities. New York, the safest big city in the U.S., had 5.6 murders per 100,000, while comparably-sized London has 1.6. Chicago is at 18.5 versus comparably-sized Madrid at 1.0 per 100,000. There is something severely dysfunctional in the social fabric of the U.S. that necessitates a much more aggressive policing and prosecution function.

I think the original justification of plea bargaining (1), has been severely distorted in light of the pressures created by (2). It makes sense to a degree, but it has been stretched, often out of necessity, far beyond reasonableness.

I don't know where you got New York being the safest big city in the US. San Diego and San Antonio have lower levels of violent crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...

I was going by murder rate, defining "big city" as over 1 million people, and forgot San Diego exists. That said, it's not really fair to compare a city with the population density of 4,000/square mile to cities in Europe with population densities of 10,000-20,000/square mile. It's harder to manage crime in a real city versus a quasi suburb.