Does the Time Fit the Crime?

When I was a child, I learned from an early age about consequences. It was really quite simple. If you broke a rule, there was a consequence. If the crime got worse, so did the consequence. As a parent of two children, I've learned myself that when doling out consequences, you have to find what works. What worked for my oldest may not work on my youngest. But whatever the case may be, if the punishment or consequence is uncomfortable enough, they usually won't do it again. This seems to be such an amazingly simple concept, yet every day, we hear of another tragedy striking, and more often than not, we later find out that the perpetrator of the crime had a history of run ins with law enforcement and/or "fell through the cracks" of the system.

Last Friday, the sleepy little town I live in was rocked with the news of a high speed chase that ended in a hostage situation, a police officer being shot, and an innocent bystander murdered. As details later started to trickle in about the suspect, the local newspaper revealed that the man accused of the crime has a history of violence and arrests.

(For the sake of journalistic integrity I need to note that as of this time, Cleveland has not officially been charged with the death of the bystander, although by all media accounts was responsible.)

Cleveland's rap sheet includes a DUI only last month, carrying a concealed weapon without a license, and at least two domestic abuse cases, and while being arrested for one of those, resisted arrest, and "reached toward the center of his truck's seat before they drew their weapons on him and removed him from the truck". Can you guess what officers found lying on the truck bench where he had reached? A gun.

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a lot of instances where people commit these horrible crimes and we find out they have a history of doing so? This makes me wonder, what the heck is wrong with our judicial system that we cannot punish people appropriately enough to make them not want to break the law again? Before you all start talking to me about overcrowded prisons and understaffed agencies, let me say I don't give a rat's rump. Our history of being lenient on criminals goes as far back as I can remember and is exactly WHY our prisons are overcrowded. I personally think we need to go back to the days where the punishment for stealing was getting your hand chopped off and if you murder a little child, that child's family gets an hour in a room with you. But that's just me. I know that won't appeal to the overly PC liberals in the world who feel that criminals should have more rights than victims.

This isn't an isolated incident, either. Just this morning I read an article about a man who was arrested for DUI in my town on a Monday night with a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit. He posted bond Tuesday afternoon and was arrested for DUI a few hours later with an even higher blood alcohol level. Umm....what the hell? Maybe we should revoke bond all together and start cleaning house, eh? He's obviously not too concerned with the consequences of his actions so that tells me that the consequences aren't hard enough.

And who can forget the case of Jaycee Dugard? In 1991, 11 year old Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped from a school bus stop by convicted sex offender Phillip Craig Garrido. 18 years later, Jaycee (along with two children fathered by this sicko) was finally found. Garrido had been previously charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, and diagnosed as a "sexual deviant and chronic drug abuser". Keep in mind all of this was before Jaycee was kidnapped. Garrido was let out to roam the streets, kidnap and rape. Why? There is no good answer other than a whole lot of people plain and simple screwed up. Simple answer? Don't let people like this out. Period. Seriously. Who gives a flyin fritter about their rights or chance at redemption? In my opinion, they should lose those rights the minute they violate someone else's.

Every day you year about sentencings where the person was let off easily because it was their first offense. How many offenses do you have to have before you're considered a problem? And how do the prosecutors, judges, etc sleep at night knowing they're letting these people back out on the streets?

I understand that there are logistics and money involved, but I think, as in most things in life, we are once again making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

Keep it simple. You do the crime, you do the time. Not you do the crime, you get fourteen chances at redemption, and then, maybe if you kill or hurt someone we might actually punish you.