Ok, so there’s this school of thought named Law and Economics (I’m not patronizing you). The people who favor some sort of expiration-date on convictions/imprisonment should ask themselves, will their proposed “solution” increase or decrease the incentive for people to escape, or not?
I don’t disagree that the ideal situation would be reasonable laws that were enforced in a mostly predictable fashion. What I’m saying is that in a complex society like ours, laws accumulate to such an extent that they can’t all be enforced, and many of the laws on the books aren’t all that sensible.
Judges are also supposed to have some discretion. Unfortunately, liberal judges have so abused that discretion that he public cried out for minimum sentencing laws and “three strikes” laws. I agree with these, usually, but the third strike shouldn’t be counted for stealing a loaf of bread.
Finally, we come to our current executive branch. It won’t enforce laws it doesn’t like in the immigration and voting arenas. Why should this woman (assuming she’s kept her nose clean for the past 36 years, which might be a stretch) receive the full weight of the law, when so many do not? Inconsistent application of the laws — unconstitutional on its face — breeds contempt for the law.