Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>> 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?
>
> What do you suggest we do?

Financial crime? Take a portion of her earnings for X years as a fine.

> OK, I drive just above the speed limit at times. I'm willing to risk a
> $50
> fine to do so. I don't drive so fast that I'd get a $200+ fine as I'm not
> willing to take the monetary risk. If I could rob banks instead of
> working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk
> anything that has jail time attached to it.

Armed robbery *is* a violent crime and as such would require jail time since
the person is a demonstrated *physical threat* to others.

> Just to use Martha as an example, just how do you punish a
> multi-millionaire?

Multi-million dollar fine sounds like a good start.

> With a fine equal to the ill gotten goods? That is
> laughable.

Where did I say that? I said a fine commensurate with *income*.

> 20 years in jail? No that is too harsh.

Jail for non-violent criminals is barbarism. Why *not* just flog them?

> I'd like to hear your suggestion and solution.

I've already stated it: make the punishment fit the crime. Violent crimes
get definite prison time to protect society. Non-violent crimes get fines,
community service, etc.

--