Our justice system certainly is unique, isn’t it? Yes, it is, especially when it comes to who gets punished for one type of crime and who gets punished for another. Or, more accurately, how much time someone is punished for. During my daily round of news site browsing, something that I do to come up with ideas for posts, I came across news reports from the local NBC affiliate.
One article details a man who was convicted of shooting at a group of people in downtown Albany. He will serve seven years in prison, as well he should. But then we have a story of a man who was convicted of stealing over $20 million in order to fund a life of luxury. Both of these crimes are of course very serious and stiff punishment is called for in each case.I may be wrong, but I would think that the man who could have ended lives should get far more than seven years behind bars. Not only that, but he should be in prison longer than a man who stole an insane amount of money. At least that’s what I think. Maybe I’m missing something.
In a perfect world, the convicted shooter should get 20 years and the fraudster should not see natural sunlight for maybe, say, 15 years. Again, both crimes are serious and in both cases, innocent people were victimized. Those victims who lost all that money will probably never see a dime of that money again, but at least they lived to tell the tale.
The shooter’s actions put people in immediate and grave danger. Society is not safe with people like him in it and it’s appalling that he’s even going to get out at all. But that’s an argument for another day. At least in the case of the thief, only the victims’ bank account suffered. Common sense dictates that violent crimes should be punished more harshly than non-violent ones.
Maybe, just maybe, sense isn’t common anymore.