Everyone from the United States seems to forget that the purpose of a justice system is to rehabilitate a convict in such a fashion that they stop committing crimes. In both of these situations, you describe a multiple re-offender, and in such cases more drastic measures should be taken than “a longer suspended sentence,” but that doesn’t automatically make one system “better” than the other. America is a litigious society, and American politicians are so obsessed with “cracking down on crime” that the punishments here are certainly beginning to not fit the crime when you creep up past minor offenses like littering. Mandatory sentences in America force judges to put people in prison, even if the unique case at hand could be better handled by a different approach. Don’t we have judges because of their wisdom in judicial matters? Why do we insist on having laws passed that tell judges what their judgments MUST be, instead of letting the judge weigh the case at sentencing? The lunacy of the American “justice system” appears in full color when the sentence for a *first-time* sexual offense involving a child is *greater* than the sentence for second-degree murder. In our effort to “crack down on sex offenders” we’re now “sending a message” that the offender should kill the victim. How is justice being served that way? I’d rather take Australia’s approach than America’s. Greater punishment has never been a deterrent to crime, either.