In today's society criminals have learned that unless they are involved in a serious crime, their punishment will not be sever. Almost all long-term sentences have to deal with felons who have committed serious offenses. So were do we draw the line on giving out short-term sentences to criminals.
             Prison overcrowding has become a big issue lately, and lots of money has been spent to try to solve this problem. There are a few right answers to this problem and a few wrong ones. One answer sounds logical but in the end will backfire on itself. This answer to fix prison overcrowding is described here by Rufus King.
             Rufus King believes we should let first-time offenders off the hook with just a slap of the hand. He explains that it will save money for not having to hold non-violent offenders for their full sentence term. This is true, having to keep these first-time offenders with their whole sentence will cost more money than letting them go early. He states his proposal in answering this problem by saying, "My proposal to relieve the problem is simple: systematic use of pardon and commutation powers to clear out worthy first-offense long-termers to make room for serious felons" (Newsweek 10). He believes that these pardons should be given out with a review of the inmates prison record. And that if you portrayed good behavior then you should be let free.
             This is not a very relevant way to think. Criminals will start to understand that they will be able to commit their crime and not worry about going to jail. Criminals already understand that if they break the law that they lose their rights. So making it even easier for them to get out of trouble and then just to commit that crime again is not a good answer. Only by telling an offender that he/she broke the law and he/she must serve a minimum sentence to pay for his/her crime is not the answer. And if we did decide to let criminals
             ...