I don't know, seems dumb to me to rule killing another individual illegal, and then make the punishment for it the same as the crime. I think I said in another thread that the English were hanging young boys for thievery in the 1800's. They don't now. They've evolved their judicial/legal process and refined it.
I find the issue of 'should we pay tons of $ to keep prisoners alive' an interesting one. Maybe the appropriate question is 'who the hell is screwing up the prison fiscal system when it costs millions per inmate?' It's not like the conditions are sooo sweet in prison and that it costs a lot to keep up that sweet lifestyle. The reason it costs a lot to keep a prisoner alive is because we're currently innefficient at doing it. If you could keep a hardened killer in prison for life for like $100,000, I'd say that's a pretty good deal for keeping this guy off the streets. Besides, it costs that much to keep an inmate regardless of his crime (basically). A guy who's convicted for 20 on armed robbery and one who's got 20 for murder still cost the system the same amount of cash. Are you going to execute the robber?
Finally, the family of the victims suffer excruciatingly. But to imply that people derive joy or satisfaction by achieving vengeance is probably short-sited. I'm sure a victim's family is filled with bloodlust... that's why they don't get to make the decision. In fact, the whole point of having judge/jury is so we can try to remove emotional constraints from appropriate penalties.
In the end, if you rule punching someone illegal, would you make the punishment a beating? If someone steals, should the punishment be the forfeiture of all the guy's possessions? No. In each case, the offender goes to jail. There is no 'style of punishment fits the style of crime' except in the States for murder.
|