In article >,
Margaret Suran > wrote:

> However, I do not believe that incarcerating her will serve any
> purpose. She is not dangerous out of prison and she will not
> perpetrate the same offense again, whether or not she is in jail.
> If I were the judge, I would sentence her to pay her "debt to society"
> in cash and in services, instead of locking her up, which will cost us
> for her room and board in the long run. Her fine could be doubled and
> she would be more valuable teaching young people something like
> cooking or keeping house, than cleaning floors in a penal institution.

I disagree. The US will not be an equitable society until our legal
system metes out punishments that are proportional to the effects of a
crime, and equally dispensed regardless of who is charged.

Currently we have a system where you can be put away for long sentences
(or life) after stealing a bicycle, if that triggers the "three strikes"
mandatory sentencing rules. Even if you get out of jail, you will have
a very hard time finding a job as a convicted felon.

But if a wealthy fat cat gets nailed for stock fraud or embezzlement,
they might serve a few months and/or pay a fine that does not put a dent
in their net worth. White collar crimes often damage a lot more people
(via lost jobs, lost savings) than street crimes. But the perps get a
slap on the wrist, because they have connections, and can afford to hire
high-powered lawyers and jury selection consultants.

Martha Stewart's insider knowledge allowed her to sell stock that she
knew would soon be significantly devalued. The buyers of that stock
lost many thousands of dollars. People were hurt.

People in the underclasses see this stuff for what it is, and it breeds
contempt for our legal and political systems.

--
Julian Vrieslander