Dave Smith wrote:

>> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does
>> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes
>> thinking they will not get *caught*.
>
> It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes
> them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time.

That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's
what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It
doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who
commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't
deter anybody.

>> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism
>> rates show it doesn't work.
>
> Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people
> so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to
> support themselves without having to resort to crime.

Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the
first place.

> Martha has job
> skills. I don't
> think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so
> she can easily afford to pay a fine.

And that would be appropriate given the crime.

> I think a little jail time is called
> for.

And now we've come all the way back to why I asked in first place and what
was not answered: why jailtime for non-violent offenders? Jail was meant as
a place to lock away those who are a *physical* danger to others; i.e.,
*violent* offenders. Why do those who commit non-violent crimes "need" to
go to prison, except as a measure of barbaric justice?

>> And it's not a proper punishment since it
>> doesn't fit every crime to have the person jailed. In Stewart's case, a
>> more proper punishment would be heavy fines commensurate with her income.
>> Jail doesn't do anything except to make the *taxpayers* pay for her
>> punishment.
>
> Consider that the US has laws to seize property and assets obtained though
> crime. I have read stories of old people losing their farms because
> someone grew a little bit of pot in the back 40 without their knowledge.
> In this case, she would be paying a fine out of the money that she made
> through illegal stock deals.

She would have to pay back the money she made and *then* a fine. Why should
she be allowed to use ill-gotten gains to pay a fine for earning ill-gotten
gains? That would be daft. If you steal X, you have to surrender X and then
pay an additional Y in fines. That's appropriate. Throwing the person into
jail when they aren't a violent offender is barbarism.

--