Justice is
supposed to be blind. Justice is
supposed to be balanced. Justice is
supposed to be fair. It is supposed to
be. Sometimes it isn’t. While no one will argue that the rights of
the victims should be unprotected, it is also important that justice be blind,
balanced, and fair to the accused or convicted as well.
The simple
truth is that justice is harder to come by for those who don’t have money. Wealthier people are better able to defend
themselves when charged with a crime.
Having a good lawyer can make the difference between having a lengthy
prison sentence or probation. It
sometimes can mean that the charges are dropped altogether. Some people of means are even able to avoid
arrest or prosecution in the first place.
The poor are at a substantial disadvantage when faced with a legal
battle. Too often, having a public
defender means asking how long the prison sentence will be instead of asking
will the defendant be found innocent.
When this happens, justice isn’t blind.
Only the wealthy are seen. The
poor are invisible.
Justice
struggles to be balanced. If you pay
attention, you will hear case after case on the news of murderers receiving
lighter sentences than robbers.
Sentences for the same crimes can vary from county to county. It can depend on which judge hears the
case. It can depend on what neighborhood
a crime takes place. It can depend on
how much publicity a case has gotten.
When a robber gets more prison time than a murderer, it makes you wonder
if taking peoples’ money isn’t considered more serious than taking their
life. An assault can land someone more
prison time than a murderer. Hurting
someone is terrible, but is it worse than killing someone? Yet discrepancies in sentences happen
regularly.
Justice
should be fair. Given the fact that the
poor are underrepresented legally, and given the fact that sentences can vary
so widely, justice has a difficult time being fair in our current system. What can be done about it?
One thing
that can be done about it is to reform the Truth in Sentencing Law. First time offenders for Class A felonies (which
includes robbery and assault) currently must serve 85% of their sentences
before being considered for parole. Is
it right for a first time offender, someone who has no prior history of
criminal behavior, to be housed for decades with truly hardened criminals? Prolonged exposure to the prison environment
is not going to rehabilitate those first time offenders. It is more likely to have the reverse effect
on them.
You have the
ability to change things. You can help
justice be blind, balanced, and fair.
Contact the legislators who make the laws. The courts can only carry out the laws legislators
have created. The power is in your hands
to improve the current system we have.
You can support legislation that gives first time offenders the ability
to earn release at 50% of their sentences through proof of good behavior. Give first time offenders convicted of
robbery and assault the ability to show that they can be productive citizens
again.
Giving first
time offenders an incentive to be better people will pay off by encouraging
true rehabilitation. It will make
prisons safer. Inmates will have a
reason to be good. The vast majority of
them will be released back onto our streets at some point anyway. Why not give those most likely to reform that
opportunity?
No comments:
Post a Comment