Years ago, in the mid-nineteen seventies, while still an administrator at a local university, I decided to enter an annual literary contest open only to faculty members. There were many entries and they were judged by a selected group of our peers. The top three entries were recognized and their pictures and the title of their papers were given recognition in the local newspaper. It just so happened that my paper won third place with my entry titled, “The Crime of Justice.” Below I have summarized a few of the important points that I made in that paper of long ago.
Justice is, and always has been, a relative term among human beings, even in courts of law; sentences vary from country to country, state to state, court to court and from judge to judge. We always want to believe that the system of law in this country is impartial, but it is obvious to even a casual observer that the thickness of one’s wallet, how ‘high up on the hill’ they live, their standing in the community, the color of their skin, their accent, as well as the skill of one’s lawyer and the temperament of the assigned judge, all of the above have a biasing effect on the outcome of a judicial trial.
For example, some states require the death penalty for a convicted murderer and other states only give them a 20-to-life sentence. Some states have specified sentences for each type of crime, and other states leave the sentencing up to the discretion of their judges who may only have been provided a few guidelines. Where it is at the discretion of the judges, one can easily imagine the variety of sentences that are handed down for the same or similar crimes. On the other hand, where there is a set of sentences established by law, a judge may have no discretionary options for those cases where the circumstances may have justified some leniency. Thus, the crime of justice!
The cost to a state to incarcerate a convicted felon is as high as $50,000 a year to feed, medicate, guard, clothe and house them. Most prisons even provide lounge areas with TV, recreational facilities, libraries plus conjugal visits by their wives or girlfriends.
These benefits are provided to keep the inmates happy while they have no choice but to lay around all day and enjoy the above benefits. There are those who have committed crimes just to qualify for the above life style. So, therefore, the innocent, hardworking, honest, taxpaying citizen becomes the victim of the criminal justice system as their taxes represent a form of financial punishment for the crimes committed by another. Thus, the crime of justice!
There may be nonviolent as well as violent prisoners in the same cell or cell block. An assigned sentence for a given crime, in terms of months or years, may have no bias between a cruel felon and one who may never have harmed another. Nonviolent criminals are sometimes given the same sentences as are those who are violent; they all take up prison space and cost society the same for their board and room. Yet, the nonviolent criminal may have had employment and a home with a family prior to sentencing. We take him out of his home, out of his job and put him in the same cell block with violent criminals, at our expense. His family then may have to go on welfare, also paid for by society, while he is imprisoned. Nonviolent criminals, who have never committed a violent act and more then likely would not, should not be treated the same as violent criminals. Thus, again, the crime of justice!
We hardly ever hear of compensation for the losses to the victims and yet, even Old Testament law required that a victim be compensated for the loss of property etc. caused by another. A felon may steal a car and before he is apprehended, if he ever is, he may wreck the car. He is sentenced to prison for auto theft and the victim, who may not have had theft insurance, is without his car and no legal path to compensation from either the thief or the state. The victim of that nonviolent crime goes uncompensated because the offender was given no opportunity or requirement to pay the victim for the losses that he caused. Thus, the crime of justice!
The premise of my paper was that the justice system needs a major overhaul, with a good hard look at the sentencing procedures.
There may be many solutions and I have suggested a few below:
1. Nonviolent criminals, who have jobs or may be well qualified for a given job should be allowed to remain out of prison to work in order to maintain their families. At the same time they should be required by law to make compensation to their victims. The amount they owe the victim and the plan of repayment should be an important part of the sentencing procedure. They may wear an ankle tracking bracelet so that officers of the court can monitor them and verify that they are behaving according to the agreement that allows them to remain out of prison. Maybe their sentence could be completed at the same time their victim(s) loss and the cost of the court procedures are appropriately compensated. They would remain on probation for some time after that to assure that they do not return to their previous nonviolent but criminal activity.
2. There are a few isolated prison systems that put the prisoners to work to pay for their keep but those are few and far between. All violent criminals, on the other hand, should have their property and bank accounts confiscated to help pay for their secure prison environment, as well as to pay compensation to their victims. A precedence for that has already been set by the drug enforcement community who are allowed to keep money, drugs, etc. confiscated during an organized drug bust.
3. Work agreements with manufacturing firms or other organizations could employ violent criminals who could be put to work in plants or work stations that are provided within the prison complex. Some of them could even be on a work detail every day to perform some community service projects. They can then help pay for their own prison costs, while starting to compensate their victims. It is criminal that society should carry the whole burden of the cost of incarceration while the prisoner lives a life of leisure.
4. The money saved by a state which may adopt a system where only violent criminals are incarcerated, could save the state literally millions of dollars annually. If the state increased the number of staff who track those on probation and purchased the electronic ankle bracelets the cost would be minimal compared to incarceration. The money saved could be put into a state controlled compensatory account to compensate victims who cannot be compensated by the criminal. With such a fund, victims might be compensated immediately, and the criminal would just pay into the state compensatory fund account. The monetary loss to a victim and the amount of compensation that they should be paid by the guilty person should be litigated and an important and significant part of each trial. What are the costs of the criminal’s behavior to the victim and/or to society? That calculated amount should be a standing debt owed the victim and/or the fund until it is paid by the criminal. That debt would follow the criminal through life until it is paid in full as well as the ankle bracelet. When the debt is paid and the bracelet came off, that person and his family would celebrate, and at the same time justice could also celebrate as having been served. Without such a fund, there can be no justice and that represents a major crime in relation to the current criminal justice system!
I believe that with a few of these ideas, if put in place, more ‘wouldbe’ criminals may be discouraged from beginning a life of crime, and it would discourage those currently involved from continuing.
Enough of my paper, for there is even a little humor in those few circumstances where justice is actually meted out. The following came from one of my favorite books entitled the, ‘Wisdom of Israel’: “A rich miser, having lost his purse, announced that he would give a generous reward to the finder. When a poor man showed up with it, the miser counted the contents and immediately cried: “There are a hundred rubles missing! Go away man! Would you expect me to give you a reward yet?” The other, knowing he had taken nothing out of the purse, complained to the local Zaddik, who sent for the skinflint and demanded: “How much did your purse contain?” “Five hundred rubles,” came the reply. Turning to the poor man, the Zaddik asked: “And how much was in the purse which you found?” “Four hundred rubles,” he answered meekly. “Then it is clear,” the Zaddik decided, turning back to the miser, “that this was not the one you lost . You will therefore give it back to the finder and let him keep it until its rightful owner appears!” Theodore Parker said, and I agree; “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one…But from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”
Such a system of justice described above would reduce the cost of law enforcement and the criminal justice system overall by at least half. What a windfall for the state and at the same time justice for the first time would really and truly be served in a civilized and reasonable way. A system as described above would have to be approved and passed by the state legislature and become a law. It would never gain acceptance merely as changes within the current system as there would be too many comfortable positions that would have to be changed, significantly modified or done away with altogether.
Regardless of our earthly justice system and the crime that appears to be inherent in it, we need to be aware that there is justice meted out by a just Judge on the other side of the veil of mortality.