I agree with you here, Tom. Most criminals are small time thieves or junkies who steal to support their habits. Their socio-economic situation drives them to crime more often than not. Executing or "torturing" these kinds of criminals would have very little effect on the causes of this kind of crime. There may be ways to fight those causes, through urban development and real rehabilitation efforts, but those things are very expensive and probably not nearly as effective as people would like to believe.
I wouldn't vote for that, either. And I don't necessarily advocate longer sentences, either. What I would like to see is less coddling of prisoners. I don't know what jails and prisons are like in Sweden (and I have no first-hand experiences here, either, thankfully) but many prisons in the US provide medical care for prisoners which is far better than anything that is provided for the poor. While I don't think they should withhold necessary medical care, I don't think a prisoner should be given, for example, sexual-reassignment surgery at the expense of the taxpayers. (See: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...211.xml&coll=7)The longer the prison terms the higher the chance of repeat offending. So even if they're not doing any crimes while in jail, they're more likely to do it again once they're out. Or we could have capital punishment for every offence no matter how small. That would fix it. Nothing I'd vote for, but it'll work.
I would also like to know who has paid for these lawsuits. Probably the taxpayers again.
As for repeat offenders, there is a county sheriff in Arizona who treats his prisoners more in line with what I've been saying. While not inhumane, his prisoners are not coddled. "For example, he banned smoking, coffee, movies, pornographic magazines, and unrestricted TV in all jails." (http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetM...mn=Sheriff_Bio)
And they absolutely do not like it! And the rate of recidivism is the lowest in the country! People DO NOT want to wind up back in HIS jail!