Chagur:
In a word: Yes, but (Yeah, I know it's two. Does this make me a Yeahbutt?)
Crime and Punishment (pun inteneded), and how governments deal (or don't) with it is the most obvious examples of abdicated personal responsibility-one of my pet peeves-which to my thinking is the most prevalent dysfunction of this country.
Your "three to five years" is of course an exaggeration for literary purposes MOST trials go UNDER six months (even in the FED calendar which is backed up for DAYS by their EXCESSIVELY exaggerated definition of "crime", MOST are plead out for "lesser offenses", and most "crimes" aren't.
Morally, (er, that is the purpose of these posts I believe) I do believe that the guilty should go free, unless there is compelling evidence of guilt. Just as past performance is no gurantee of future returns, past criminal behaviour is NOT relevant to the current accusation of crime. I actually believe in the PRESUMPTION of innocence before the law, should be enforced as an absolute. Unless there is specific evidence (not circumstantial) that
A. A crime has been committed, (I define crime later)
B. THIS accused was witnessed (in some manner not necessarily by a person) committing it,
C. THERE was a profit (reason) to the accused to commit the crime,
There is NO reason for this issue to even be before the court in the first place. Yes, Virgina MOST crimes aren't, and MOST of the court's time is a waste and sham.
The public time and MONEY shouldn't be wasted on bums, bimbos, and parking/speeding violators (that is a municipal TAX, not a crime, but I made my point). Am I running in circles? As ALL philosophical issues do, but just a bit, but since you ASKED, I'll run it down... In my perfect little universe,[/B}
Suggested conviction impediments would be,
A. Previous convictions are NOT evidence of current accusations (and irrelevant to anything but, possibly sentencing, which should (mostly) be monetary). Before you get off onto examples of some horrendous offender who was cut loose, repeatedly, they probably should have put a bullet behind his left ear the FIRST time, most likely when he was a punk teenager--My ideas there are far more severe than many peoples'. I don't care if he was only 10, if he took a FULLY automatic assault rifle and shot up the school, killing half a dozen students and staff, they should have taken him outside and blown his little punk head off, cleaned up the mess, and been done with it. This goes along with the dead would be carjacker in the car park, IF someone tries to jack my car, and I blow him away, defending my life and property, I should be able to just walk away from it and have the department of sanitation take care of it.
B. Conspiracy as currently defined, would be eliminated. Planning a heist, is NOT a crime (or shouldn't be). THINKING is NOT criminal, just as buying a book (ie: Poor Man's James Bond, the Anarchist's Cook book, or military publications of field munitions manufacture) or a gun is NOT criminal, nor necessarily done with the intent of committing a crime. Under current law, wistfully conjuring all the money you COULD make, and (more importantly) how you would spend it by selling cocaine IS currently illegal (even if you do not express it to anyone--pray the Feds don't invent a thought reader to go with those fancy new "KNOW ALL airport" security cards with biometric-666 tattoos-and attendant data bases).
C. THERE are only two types of true crime.
ALL of the other issues are issues of (publicly defined) aberrant behaviour. THAT is not and shouldn't be a public issue, and in MOST cases it should be dealt with on an individual basis, by the individuals concerned. Yes, I believe in PUBLIC NUT houses (or something more efficient and definitely Darwinian…).
---->1. Property: Vandalism. Coerced-indentured servatude-repayment, PLUS monetary punitive award and repayment of court's costs).
---->2. Personal: Injury against individuals. Punitive Monetary award (plus repayment of court costs)
In BOTH cases, a monetary award is sufficient to appease the injured party (as you cannot replace limbs nor "innocence"). HOW much is enough, well, to my thinking, the national average income indexed to the CPI would most likely do it, unless it can be conclusively shown that more is needed for adaptive eqipment in service of medical needs… He's going to have to wark hard, AND there will have to be a public (inviolable) slush fund.
By example, selling dope, per se, does not injure ANYONE, financially, except the addict and the GOV't by taxation loss. When he resorts to crime to pay for his habit (even if it is twinkies) his issues become public and the "cure", is for him to repay his debts (by compulsion if necessary-after all, there are OTHER uses of a GPS locator than telling me where my car is WHILE I'm DRIVING IT). Morally, dope selling has been decided (for us by our legislators-every time the people vote, they vote FOR it. California legalized marijuana THREE TIMES, and the CALIFORNIA/FED JUDICIAL branch overturned it-the last time Ashcroft started locking up the docs who were 'legally' prescribing it for medical issues it showed a propensity for alleviating) to be an unacceptable behaviour for which we shall pay on average 90-180k per "offender" to "correct" by incarcerating the individual (which in reality teaches him HOW NOT to get caught by MANAGING his business better, NEXT time.
Rape (not statutory between ages of 16 & 18-who is going to stop a 16 year old girl from getting herself some, if she wants it? hm? I would, also, eliminate "date" rape as a crime. She should have said "no" A LONG TIME BEFORE she got nekked-if HE removed her clothes without her consent it isn't date rape, just rape), murder, kidnapping, torture, should have but one punishment upon (final) conviction. While such conviction may well take a couple of years to go through the courts, there should be only one punishment (and go ahead and let them choose it) which is DEATH (I would only allow appeals on issues of the EVIDENCE, not the machinations of interpellation of arcane procedure).
The State of California currently pays 65k a year to keep Sirhan-Sirhan locked up for using MORE bullets than his gun could hold in shooting RFK. I met this convicted assassin before the crime occurred--he didn't know WHAT a RFK was, let alone WANT to kill him... He wanted his family to come over and was working TWO full time jobs (at the time I met him) to make that happen. I'm not saying he didn't do it; I'm not saying that the FEDs invented his diary, I'm saying that when I met him he was nearly as apolitical as they come, and a VERY hard working immigrant... IF he became involved with hypnotherapy experiments, it was for the MONEY. Ooooooops back on track,
As to the EVIDENCE, I want there to be solid evidence of INJURY, whether monetarily, or physically of a business or person before we even GET to the trial phase. I want all the moralistic nonsense eliminated from the criminal code-it should be purely objectively rational. IF some gal wants to rent parts of her anatomy by the hour, it's her BUSINESS (and so long as she pays the VAT and sees a doc occasionally) WHO CARES? If your wife does, then I suggest it's HER problem, and SHE should deal with it. Supply and demand will determine pricing. Good business practices will determine who may participate in such a "business". Who is Ashcoft to say that some upwardly thinking teenybopper in Portland SHOULDN'T rent parts of herself by the hour, if SHE wants to hang out her shingle, pay her taxes, and prove she's seen a doc...?
Long story short, MOST of the crimes on the books are redundant hidden taxation, which I would eliminate. My views on personal recreational (although I do not choose to participate) substance use and alleged prostitution are obvious. Simple assault is personal issue which should be handled personally and privately. IF you are monetarily damaged (or medically, and irreparably) then you are entitled to compensation, IF you didn't start it (and have demonstrable proofs).
IF you want more, you have my addy as this disccusion could go for years... As always it is the abdication of responsibility that causes a problem to become a public issue. Somebody wants SOMEBODY else to do something (my basic response is, "Go do it yourself, and shut up, please, but don't tell me what I SHALL do because YOU want it that way").
Mr. K.