Escaping Justice in America

Read Time:6 Minute, 30 Second

Corporal punishment, once hotly debated, is becoming passé. It used to be expected, and now in some circles, it is assumed a good parent would not think of using such a barbaric tactic. Interesting how punishment evolves and how victims of punishment perceive it.

Let me tell you a short story:

Two siblings, I will call them Sundance and Moon, could not resist the temptation to stay out past curfew. Sundance was a rugged boy of eight years, and Moon was a delicate little girl of seven. Authorized only to spend two hours after school at the library each day, they would sometimes spend four, and when their Dad found them, often they were not at the library, but at a nearby arcade, playing games. The first several times he caught them, he spanked them, each time with more passion than the last, but nothing seemed to work.

One day, Dad overheard Sundance tell Moon that he enjoyed spankings, that they were arousing. Moon despised them, and would only break the rules when Sundance persuaded her they would not get caught. Sundance confessed that he had to continually take more chances, to stay out even longer, because the punishment was not painful enough to satisfy his cravings.

Armed with this new data, the next time Sundance and Moon violated curfew, their desperate dad spanked them even harder, and the next time, still harder. He reasoned that since the penalty for curfew violations was a spanking and the children knew this to be the penalty, it was the right thing to do. I know this may sound absurd, but read on, as the rationale will be shown to be sound.

Let me tell you another story:

I make a decent living for a poor fellow. My friend Crystal did not fare as well. She works hard and earns minimum wage. As a single mother with little education who receives no child support and earns no other income, she spends almost everything she makes on her son. Her life is the definition of living paycheck to paycheck. For Crystal, a flat tire can be a major financial crisis, making the simple task of feeding her son virtually impossible.

Like me, Crystal is a well-meaning American citizen. However, even the best of us falter, and so she did. A few months ago she was convicted of a crime. Purely by coincidence, it is the same crime I committed earlier this year.

Like me, she was caught speeding. For our offense, we each received a traffic ticket for about three hundred dollars. To put this in its proper perspective, realize that she had unwittingly purchased at least three flat tires worth of crime.

Our legal system, whom I will call Dad for the remainder of this commentary, seems to mix up its understanding of the concepts of penalties and punishment. The law can exist for only three purposes: deterrence, retribution, and justice. Deterrence is the only enlightened justification Dad could have for legally punishing my friend. However, for laws to be equal, the penalty for a crime must be equally felt, regardless of financial status. In both cases, we inflict a financial blow on the criminal, but one of the criminals is far more capable of absorbing the blow unscathed, whereas on the other, it is an extraordinary act of violence.

Sympathizing with Crystal, I explained this problem to her. She defended Dad! She explained to me how when she was young before her son was born, she went out every night and enjoyed life. While some of her peers studied, she consumed liquor. While her peers went to bed early in anticipation of tomorrow’s tests and studies, she partied. Now, they make more money than she does and have better lives. She taught me how crime is not all that they can better afford, but how they can also purchase flat screen televisions and pay mortgages on nice condominiums. Just as in nature, if you accidentally walk too close to a cliff, you are likely to fall, and when you do, you get hurt. It is justice.

I patiently listened, then attempted to address each point. I started with the last one. Nature will harm you if you accidentally walk off of a cliff. That does not make harming people who stand too close to the edge of cliffs OK. Nature is not doing this in effort to be just or do the right thing. Gravity lacks a moral center, rendering it ignorant of a sense of right or wrong. Are we saying that because nature unknowingly harms good people, it is ok if Dad does? Well, it turns out that this is how it works. Dad can harm good people if nature harms good people. If Dad just emulates what he sees in nature, justice will be done. If Dad sees a coyote tear an infant to shreds and consume it, then Dad may devour exactly one infant. Once she explained my error on this point, I moved on to the next.

I argued that people who become wealthy through hard work and discipline should be rewarded with an easier life, but that crime should not be a commodity. I suggested that how much stuff one has, regardless of the reason he has it, should not regulate how easy we make it for him to break the law without consequence. I had it all wrong. Crystal quickly corrected me:

It turns out that some people became educated and can afford to buy nice things. Crime is a nice thing and Dad has no right to curtail their right to buy it, or to make it un-pleasurable for them. They deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and meting out punishment that is felt equally regardless of your financial class would be wrong. We do not punish people as a deterrent alone. We punish them because they deserve to be punished. Those who work hard instead of partying do not deserve punishment as much. They deserve rewards and forgiveness, because they have improved their lot in life with attributes we admire. Having been defeated on this point also, I moved onto a more general discussion.

The conversation went on for a while. I eventually learned that I was a communist. I forgave the accusation, since I realized that she really meant I am a socialist. She proved it when she explained that crime is a service we all can purchase. It turns out that it is no different than getting a passport, which costs what it costs. To argue that a three hundred dollar fine is not a fitting punishment for someone who has three billion dollars is no different than saying we should prorate the cost of passports, based on your annual income.

Crystal taught me that three hundred dollars is three hundred dollars, no matter how much money the person paying it has. The crimes are equally punished. I tried arguing that for me, a three hundred dollar fine is not very much punishment, even though the same penalty is devastating to her. She corrected me immediately. Punishment and penalty are the exact same things.

I cannot debate her any further. There is no argument I have for which she does not have an answer. Three hundred dollars is three hundred dollars, no matter who pays it. A spanking is a spanking no matter who receives it. Nothing could be more equal than everyone suffering the same penalty. To say otherwise would be like arguing that one person should have his income taxed using a different algorithm than another. Nonsense!

Crystal and I ended the discussion each believing no progress was made. However, I am actually second-guessing my position now. Perhaps we should prorate the price of passports.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About Post Author

John Myste

John Myste is a proud agnostic liberal living in Texas with his loving wife, two loving dogs and a cat. He does not actively seek the truth, and has a firm opinion on nothing. He likes interesting discussions and unique perspectives; and he hopes and believes that if he indulges in these, the truth will follow.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

13 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
lazersedge
13 years ago

John, would you give me permission to use your post in one of my classes in criminal justice. I think it would be a great example of justice undeserved but welcomed by nuts.

Reply to  lazersedge
13 years ago

My post belongs to the world, my friend. It is like polio vaccine or dust mites.

You may use at your discretion, so far as I am concerned. I assume if it were to be republished in any way, you would need Mr. Scott’s authorization also at this point, but you certainly have mine. I would be honored.

Stella by Starlight
13 years ago

Great post John (the good). A twisted variation of the Stockholm Syndrome. Yes, and I guess 90% of this country (or more?) fall under the same delusion as Crystal and the guy with whom you work. It’s terribly sad.

Justice has become a commodity on which the rich trade money to escape the consequences of their actions. For the rest of us, punishment is not meted out equally: but then, nothing has really changed throughout history.

The Horatio Algier myth is a delusion. I am at a loss to understand how people can think hard work will lead to wealth. Should hard workers without money also receive a less stringent punishment? I’m being rhetorical, of course.

Seriously, John. Many thanks for a well-reasoned and well-written post.

Reply to  Stella by Starlight
13 years ago

Thanks, Ms Starlight. It baffles me how Donald Trump has to pay 300.00 if he speeds, which he cares nothing about, and how someone who considers 300.00 a weeks pay also has to pay that amount and how anyone could consider that fair. More astonishing, most people consider it fair. Grrrrr.

Jess
13 years ago

There are just some people, no matter how you try, you will never get through to them with logic and facts. Seems Crystal may be one of those, who will go against her own interests because someone somewhere has manipulated the thinking.

13 years ago

It’s the law Jim…er…John…but not as we know it…

lazersedge
13 years ago

John, what a terrific post and a great lesson in life. Perchance was Crystal from Alabama? I do not understand this thinking but these folks truly believe what they say. Of course, when you run into a fence post it believes it is where it is supposed to be also.

oso
Reply to  John Myste
13 years ago

That had come to mind before, but slipped back out! thanks for that. Stockholm Syndrome is very apt.

Admin
13 years ago

Another fine post John. Thanks.

oso
13 years ago

John,
You lay the matter out very well, with humor but also with common sense. I make the assumption that Crystal is a social conservative, but that may not be the case. Reason being,I work with a Beck guy who thinks the same way as Crystal. Even when I postulate a scenario where, say, taxes go down for him specifically and rise the same amount for the richest 1%, he’s in opposition because the wealthy got there thru hard work ergo deserve a break more than he.

Personally I think capitalism’s fine as long as it’s tempered with a social safety net, so I’m not saying bash the rich, but I am saying progressive taxation is good for all. I can afford to pay a higher % than Crystal for example, so have no problem with it.

I don’t know man, kind of a What’s the Matter with Kansas scenario I suppose.

Previous post Hillary Clinton robs bank in Virginia?
Next post Exterminating Progressives?
13
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x