Eye for an eye: Punishment should fit crime
I, for one, am an advocate of capital punishment. I don’t approve of mindless vengeance or vigilantism, but I think in the case of confirmed, convicted murderers, capital punishment is appropriate. In short, executing a murderer is a punishment that fits the crime.
But it seems that capital punishment is the only such case, as far as our legal system is concerned.
People who rob banks get thrown in jail. So what? You get to lie in a comfortable bed and eat three square meals a day and practice knitting in your spare time. No. If you rob a bank, or steal jewelry or any other kind of valuables, the government should seize every asset you own except the clothes on your back. And, if you get caught robbing again, you should get your hands chopped off.
If you steal a car, the state should impound your vehicle and make you buy it back. If you don’t own a car (if, for instance, you’re a minor), then the state ought to seize the next car you buy, or an appropriate sum of cash.
Now, if you’re a rapist or a child molester, you’re really in for it. My mother is of the opinion that all male rapists and sex criminals ought to be castrated. I heartily approve of this form of punishment for these sickos.
This is an advantageous penalty for all involved. With one stroke, you prevent the criminal from ever perpetrating the crime again, deter a lot of other criminals from perpetrating the same crime, and, on a related note, prevent the slime of humanity from reproducing.
If you hijack a jetliner or do something else that necessitated the taking of hostages, then you ought to be tied to a target and have the local SWAT team shoot your arm hairs off one by one.
For breaking and entering, the government ought to hire a team of specialists to go through your house/apartment/cabin/shack and generally bust the place up.
Anyone who commits embezzlement, graft or any of those corporate money-related crimes, like the Enron debacle, should have their yachts, Swiss bank accounts, Lamborghinis and other assets donated to charity. That ought to teach them that greed is naughty, and it’s much nicer to be generous.
Furthermore, these criminals should be required to live on the streets as homeless paupers for a year or two, just to give them an idea of life on the bottom rung. Some people might say this is a cruel and unusual punishment, but I say it’s a lesson in perspective.
These penalties would have a far greater effect on criminality in this country if they were implemented, I think.
What we have now is a system that doesn’t deter nearly enough people to be effective, and punishments that don’t leave enough lasting effects on those who endured them.
Everyone’s afraid of prison and a lot of people will run from police to avoid going back, but they’ll still commit crimes.
Imagine how many people would take hostages and demand money if they knew they were going to be used for target practice by trained professionals?
How many slimy corporate executives would steal money from shareholders if they knew they’d be forcibly bankrupted by the state? How many rapists would dare take a victim if they knew that they’d be castrated? I am willing to bet not many.
Columnists' opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of The Spectrum