The second reading declares that the “key issue was sentence length” (Gilmore 89). It’s staggering to think that there were indeterminate sentences, which means a person going in wouldn’t have something to look forward to in terms of escape. From a psychological standpoint, this would have made it very hard for these criminals to be rehabilitated. In a system they feel they’re being cheated by (by not knowing the duration of their stay in prison), they wouldn’t be invested in the programs offered. Similarly, not knowing the grounds for release would eradicate the hope some would have for an earlier sentence. These prisoners who then worked toward rehabilitation with the prison system to “persuade local parole boards of their readiness to rejoin society” (89) would not be demonstrating this readiness for any reason other than the desire to get out. Thus, they would most likely say or act any way the parole board would want, only for as long as it took to be freed. Food for thought: do stated sentences or uncertain ones produce more “rehabilitated” convicts?