The balance
MercuryNews.com | 06/14/2006 | Girl's savior faces 3rd strike
Here is a man who has committed multiple burglaries counting for tens of thousands of dollars of personal property. The law in his state says that for a third felony conviction, the accused risks life in prison ("three strikes, you're out"). But the argument is this: in the course of his latest crime spree, he supplied evidence to police that put a child molester behind bars. Where is the balance? Should a man with obvious redeemable qualities be locked away for life?
A reader made a very astute comment:
This brings to bear a greater scope of issues: the roles of prisons. A person with a drug habit cannot be "corrected" in a "correctional facility" if there is no real correction: rehabilitation. However, in any repeat offender's case, no matter the cause or circumstances, you just cannot have a guy go to rehab and let him wander loose.
Prisons should lock up criminals, but they also need to serve a purpose for actually rehabilitating and correcting criminals so that they can be released and be productive members of society. A prison should, in this way, be like a hospital as well (or in some cases a mental asylum I suppose). "Three strikes" laws reduce the chance of that happening. There are cases, I'm sure, when "three strikes" is the most logical conclusion. But not in this man's case, nor others similar to it.
Here is a man who has committed multiple burglaries counting for tens of thousands of dollars of personal property. The law in his state says that for a third felony conviction, the accused risks life in prison ("three strikes, you're out"). But the argument is this: in the course of his latest crime spree, he supplied evidence to police that put a child molester behind bars. Where is the balance? Should a man with obvious redeemable qualities be locked away for life?
A reader made a very astute comment:
This guy's problem is methamphetimine, not burglary. Stealing stuff is only a means to an end, specifically; fueling his drug addiction. He has redeeming qualities, as evidenced by his good deed.
Locking up drug addicts does not help them (they can still get drugs in jail) and when they get out, the addiction is so strong, they go back to using drugs.
This man needs ongoing treatment and some sort of support sturcture to hold him accountable and keep him clean and sober. Then he will most likely abandon his life of crime and make a contribution to society instead of taking from society.
Our justice system has to temper the administration of justice with mercy. My god! He put his life in jeopardy to save a little girl. If that deed does not warrant mercy, then our justice system is truly broken.
This brings to bear a greater scope of issues: the roles of prisons. A person with a drug habit cannot be "corrected" in a "correctional facility" if there is no real correction: rehabilitation. However, in any repeat offender's case, no matter the cause or circumstances, you just cannot have a guy go to rehab and let him wander loose.
Prisons should lock up criminals, but they also need to serve a purpose for actually rehabilitating and correcting criminals so that they can be released and be productive members of society. A prison should, in this way, be like a hospital as well (or in some cases a mental asylum I suppose). "Three strikes" laws reduce the chance of that happening. There are cases, I'm sure, when "three strikes" is the most logical conclusion. But not in this man's case, nor others similar to it.
posted by xanadian at 10:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home