We will always have crime and criminals, of various types. Our only debate becomes what to do with those who allegedly commit crimes. Our society does have rules, largely based on the US Constitution. Other societies have rules also, and the most common rule seems to be some version of "beat him with rubber hoses until he confesses, then shoot him in the back of the head". (sometimes the first part is optional.)
"Our" system used to have many rules, which begun with Miranda warnings, then arrest with the right to an attorney, (which implies non-coercive questioning), and later one trial by Jury (no double jeopardy). If convicted, one was sentenced to a fairly specific time in prison, although parole boards could reduce a sentence for "good behavior" in prison.
Was "our" system perfect? NO
Did it attempt to protect rights of the accused? YES
The prison term part was always the most debated. It was supposed to accomplish at least 2 purposes, maybe 3. First, deter others from the same path. Second, punish the perp for his crime. Third, keep the perp in jail until he "learned his lesson" and wouldn't repeat the crime. As a practical matter, recidivism was always our weakest link.
Now, "our" system is changing. From a system where "all men are created equal" we have substituted "all Americans with papers". Lack of American Citizenship is not the only reason to deny a suspect his "rights". Denying the right to an attorney and a fair trial is also acceptable for certain types of crimes, such as an accusation of "terrorist". Which means that we now have an ever-larger number of people who can be accused of crimes, stripped of all rights, and treated just like they would be in our world's cruel dictatorships. Are we admitting that "our" system never worked? While I agree that a system which begins with torture until a crime is admitted, and then proceeds through kangaroo court to conviction and "sentence", is more efficient, I for one think "rights" are important, even if they reduce "efficiency".
Another area which is changing is "double jeopardy". A person used to get one jury trial, if he was found not guilty he was set free. Now we are trying to create systems where we can try a person again and again until we get a guilty verdict. For instance, if a person is accused of murdering a person of another race, or a different sexual orientation, and found innocent of murder, he can be retried for the crime of "hate". (thought crime). It is becoming common for henous crimes to have many layers of State and Federal accusations, so they can be tried numerous times by numerous judges until the "right" result is achieved.
Then, after sentence, additional sentences are "piled on", sometimes years later. For instance, a felony, which used to be a serious crime, now includes a life sentence of not being able to protect oneself. While felony convictions are for less and less, and often for crimes which bear no relationship to violence. Another example would be various types of "sex crimes". Regardless of the crime and the punishment, years later the person can be classified a "sexual predator" and recieve an additional "life sentence". This is equally, and mindlessly, true for one who has raped 15 strangers and one who, at age 18+, had consensual sex with one who turned out to be 18-. While pundits like to say that "sex criminals do it again", there is little comparison with the recidivism rate of other crimes.
Where did America go? I want to go there.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.