Over the years I have considered a number of things regarding the law and how normal humans should protect themselves from the human parasites. Having been the victim of a mugging on more than one occasion, my views are, of course, polarised.
To this day I remain convinced that I should have some right to actually kill (not get somebody else to do it for me) the people who mugged me. I feel it would be justice. When they mugged me they took away more than just physical things like money and mobile phones. They took away some of my strength, self-esteem, re-assuredness, confidence and personality. They took away bits of me and who I was. They took them forever.
Replacing the money and mobiles wasn’t the problem. Replacing the bit of me they’d mentally cut-out was impossible. From that point onwards I was changed and damaged and had to work for years to re-build my confidence to walk the streets at night without sweating and feeling absolutely terrified.
To have damaged me, the person in me, the who I am, to this level could only be vaguely compensated by me killing those involved. Nothing less would satisfy. That knowledge and feeling remains within me to this day.
To the muggers of course, I was just one of many. They won’t remember me. I was in the right place at the right time. I was easy prey. They lost nothing. Nothing of them was changed or damaged. They gained the money and the mobiles, and the rush and kudos of having taken them from another old white man.
The disproportionate legacy of the mugging is what needs to be dealt with. It’s what I would 100% happily deal with, even all these decades later, by shooting them and standing contentedly as they slowly died in front of me. I really really would have no problem with that, however others might not believe me.
In terms of the law and justice, this justice I seek is obviously extreme and very unlikely to ever become law. Having said that, one wonders if street muggings would go down if the penalty was death.
Peter Moore recently wrote (here) about the unfairness of our sentencing system compared to that in some parts of America. Personally, I’d say that in some aspects the American system (well, it does differ from State to State) is over the top, and in others it’s almost as lacking as ours. However, ours in the UK is disgusting.
The criminals see being sentenced as a joke. Nothing more than being in a race and the bravado of being given a 5 second penalty for being caught cheating. They are taught how to play the system. That’s why custodial sentences are usually avoided and instead preference is given to weirdo mamby-pamby new age and completely pointless sentences that are as effective as being told to spend 4 hours sitting on a cushion.
The reason the non-custodial sentences don’t work is that they are not using the same language as the criminal speaks. The average criminal only understands (and respects) the rule of force and power. He will avoid or even fear the person who might cause him damage. That is the person he submits to because that person is speaking his language and speaking it loudly.
Sadly, the rule by force and power is usually in the hands of other criminals, the bigger fish in the pond. It is never in the hands of the police, the justice system, or society, or the community around him. It’s never ‘us’ he fears.
Instead, the ‘system’ is weak. The criminal knows it’s weak, and that’s why he has no respect for it and can’t hear it gently saying, “Actually, erm, excuse me, sorry to tell you this, but what you’ve done is a little bit naughty you know”. Were it using the language he lives by and respects he would submit to it, just as he submits to the bigger fish.
I can’t profess to know the ultimate answer to reducing crime, but I’m pretty sure it should go along the lines of giving a person one or maybe even two chances at rehabilitation, but then I really do like the three strikes and you’re out policy. By the time a person has been sentenced for the third time, he’s of no value to society and has proven he will never be, so forget him. As we are not allowed to kill him, put him away forever, not just a few token years.
The immediate affect is the dramatic reduction in crime. A crime ‘wave’ is usually a heck of a lot of crimes (all with a victim) being carried out by just one or two people, even if they only get caught and sentenced for one of them. Removing just two criminals can instantly reduce this ‘wave’ to nothing, and it also ‘scares’ those who might have otherwise copied the activity and created even more victims.
Since the reason why we keep letting people out of prison so they can carry on creating more victims is usually based on economics, maybe it’s also time to think of ways to make those behind bars useful or to pay their own way. If it was up to me, certain criminals serving life would be used to experiment or test new drugs on, maybe harvest their organs for use by normal people who actually want to contribute to society, or at the very least make them do actual work (unpaid) in order to pay for their keep. As long as whatever they were doing wasn’t putting normal people out of work, then this would be fine.
The bottom line is that a custodial sentence should speak their language. Nothing else will work. That’s been proven time and time again.
They should fear prison so much that they avoid it by trying to be part of society instead of the dregs of it.