Final answer:
Legislatures should consider alternative sentencing ranges and diversion options, particularly for juveniles, where incarceration increases future crime rates. For adults, a tailored approach is necessary. It is also important to address disparities in legal application across different jurisdictions with a cost-benefit analysis guiding policy decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether legislatures should set different ranges for sentencing offenses or create more diversion options touches on key issues within the criminal justice system. It is clear that for juveniles, incarceration increases the likelihood of future crime and reduces the chance of returning to education, thereby increasing the long-term cost of crime to society. For these reasons, diversion programs like community service might provide a more effective alternative.
For adults, the situation is more complex; incarceration has been shown to reduce crime to an extent, albeit with benefits approximately equal to the cost. Therefore, one-size-fits-all policies such as universal incarceration or early release are not optimal. A more tailored approach, sensitive to the type of offense and offender risk profile, might lead to better outcomes in terms of reducing recidivism and associated costs to society.
In light of differences in state and federal laws, such as those regarding marijuana, disparities in court treatment can occur. This points to the importance of examining and potentially rectifying legal disparities to ensure fair and equal application of the law across jurisdictions. The assessment of these policies should always be built on a foundation of cost-benefit analysis; assessing the effectiveness of crime reduction approaches against their monetary and social costs.