There's certainly some element of not expecting much from poor arab states. Yes, we do hold Israel to a higher standard than its neighbours - because it's richer, because it's seen as an extension of the US, and because it advertises and makes much of its status as the only democracy in the region. And there's probably at least some element of racism, but I think it's less a case of "it's all the jews' fault" and more "these smart white folks have a burden the brown savages do not".

>All other cases in WW I/II have been laid behind them by the victims, but this.

My instinct is to lay that at the feet of religion. Two violently opposed religions claiming the same areas as important holy sites makes peace hard.

>1. Is that measured for first time criminals only? It is a big step to risk jail.

AIUI it's been tested across criminals in general, not just first time.

>2. To simplify, there are two types of criminals. The first are the idiots that drink beer on a Saturday and get in a knife fight and the second type consider and weigh for/against like any other entrepeneur. How is the sentence length sensitivity if you ignore things like drunks that knife each others?

The thing is, "crime doesn't pay" isn't just a slogan, it's actually true. So the kind of smart people who evaluate the consequences usually end up following a different career. The only place it seems to me that it might make a difference would be the kind of grey area tax avoidance/fraud schemes, where the person is going to argue that what they did isn't a crime at all. But I don't think there would be much support for harsher sentencing of crimes that were only just on the wrong side of the law.

>3. Sentences have influence. A proof: If there was a death sentence for e.g. jay walking, not even I would do it (sober, see 2.). But -- I wouldn't jaywalk even if it was just one year in jail. In that way, there is no influence by sentence length -- is that how the claim is measured?

AIUI studies mostly look at crimes for which the sentencing guidelines were changed, or where different regions sentence differently, or statistically compare criminals who were given different sentences for the same crime. Obviously none of these methods are perfect.

I'll defer to you on psychopaths.

>- Hard drug users. The logical solution is not to give them short sentences if they aren't likely to have stopped the drugs -- for their own sake.

But prison is no good at getting them off the drugs or stopping them reoffending, unless you're going to lock them up forever to rot; what would a long prison sentence achieve that a short one wouldn't? Medical treatment and community service give them a better chance than prison - though still not a great one - at being able to reintegrate into society.

>- International crime syndicates -- see type two above (entrepeneur).

AIUI most of the inherently illegal income for crime syndicates comes from drugs, but it's hard to see how heavier sentencing would damage that income. Street-level dealers are easily replaceable and it's a pretty crappy job already, I don't think longer prison sentences would damage their recruitment. The executives usually stand to lose all their money and lifestyle if they're ever convicted (proceeds of crime and all that); they're banking on paying the right bribes and/or never getting caught.

AIUI you missed a third category of burglar: the independent "professional" who burgles because they're poor and have no skills with which to get a job. But while these guys do a bit better than drug addicts in prison (sometimes they're able to get some kind of qualification there - which is pretty much the only case where spending a longer time in prison will help), community service sentences still give them a better chance of not returning to crime.