There has long been a debate over the nature of our justice system. Is it about retribution where the punitive act takes precedence over all? Is it about rehabilitation? Is it about protecting the law abiding citizens of society from the anti-social elements? Is it a combination? Is there room for mercy in the halls of justice?
Every so often a case comes to light that makes me take stock of where we are at. I am hardly one of the "soft on crime" crowd. I find it despicable that 10 - 20 years often means 2 - 3 served, that cops and politicians break the law with seeming impunity, and so forth.
At the same time, I apparently believe in rehabilitation. If someone committed a crime a couple decades ago, got away with it for a time, and is found as a productive, valuable member of society who has obviously moved on, learned from their mistakes...is there really a need to enact the punitive measures of the law?
I mean, sure...she did the drug crime and did escape...but she was what...20? 21? at the time? And now, 32 years later you are going to nail her for it?
If ever there was a case where a pardon was in order, I am going to argue this is it.
4 years ago
2 comments:
I agree. There are people sitting in jail for 20 years or so for having pot when they were a teenager or something dumb like that, while murderers get out after a couple of years. Very skewed at times.
That's just sick.
Post a Comment