Punishment should fit the crime

Re: Horrible acts call for new dialogue, Our View, April 1, 2011.

As teen and adult minds expand, the civilized rules of life become more understandable and nobody in these age groups can deny that “they did not know’” the acts they committed were wrong and against the law.

When people (teens and older) know the consequences of committing a horrendous crime and do it anyway, then deterrence has failed. If found guilty by a court, through confession and indisputable testimony or evidence, the guilty should then be punished.

In the case of these horrendous crimes, murder being the worst, it is my opinion that the guilty, remorseful or not, should be given punishment relevant to the crime.

I don’t believe they should live in prisons with more amenities than a lot of our minimum wage or lesser income citizens have. Things such 24-hour Internet, 100-plus channels of satellite TV are not punishments.

Convicted prisoners of the horrendous crimes give up all their civil rights (privileges) and their time out should be without all these.

They are sent to prison as punishment for the crime they committed, not to have all the things that they had and still want in their lives. They should be made to work, obey rules, get rewards for good behaviour and vice versa for bad.

As a further deterrent any incarcerated person who earns the right to be, and is paroled, and commits a second horrendous crime, warrants a permanent life sentence in a prison.

People who cannot realize what they did wrong, why they were imprisoned, who cannot be rehabilitated, and have no wish to ever be civilized, should never be given the chance to take or ruin the lives of any innocent beings and their families again.

For those families who have lost loved ones to crime, I grieve with you. For those who do not agree with my opinions, look around the room at your family, and ask yourself, “What if it happened to them?”

Ken Levert

Langford

 

Pop-up banner image ×