Are You Free?
To a number of bloggers, freedom is having a sufficiently large income that they can do whatever they want: stay at home to spend time with family, travel the world, retire and live off interest income, etc.
But, whatever your situation, are you really free?
If you have to spend your time fighting content theft, how free are you?
And, what about real world theft too? People break into homes, and not only do people lose their things, but they feel violated as well. People break into businesses, which hurts productivity and costs the business time and money as well.
It’s not just the loss of stuff either, but the clean-up from the mess of the break-in (broken glass, broken doors, cut wires, bended metal, etc.) and from the thieves rooting through things.
Not everything can be replaced either. There may be jewelry or other items that was handed down in the family from one generation to the next. Inherited furniture may not be stolen, but damaged or destroyed.
A common response is that insurance will pay for it. Well, you paid for that insurance! And, the more crime occurs, the more we all pay for our insurance. If you have to pay money to pay for the replacement of things you already have because someone someday might steal it from you, is that freedom?
What about going out in public? Travelers are often advised not to look like tourists because they might be mugged or scammed. If you have to dress a certain way to avoid being a victim of a crime, are you free?
Even in your own hometown, you’re often advised to be careful, especially at night. We advise teens and women to go out in numbers–never alone–because you never know when there might be a pervert or nutjob or criminal out there wanting to hurt someone. Is that freedom?
Here’s a simple litmus test: If a young woman can go out alone in the middle of the night wearing nothing more than a bikini with a couple hundred dollar bills in her waist strap and take a shortcut through a dark alley to go to a gas station to buy a bag of chips and a six pack of beer without being assaulted, mugged, raped, murdered, kidnapped or harmed in any way, then you live in a free (and safe) country.
On top of all that, we (well, many of us) live in a society where there is greater concern for the criminal than for the victims they hurt. While the criminal may go through appeal after appeal after appeal, the victim is long forgotten. The victim is the one that has to continue their life, clean up the mess, pick up the pieces–and they were the ones that didn’t do anything wrong!
Society’s attitude is to screw the victim. It’s the criminal that needs to be well-treated. The victim is biased, so his or her opinion is of no value.
Heck, sometimes we even blame the victim! Well, he shouldn’t have gone there. She shouldn’t have been dressed like that. He shouldn’t have driven that fancy car. She asked for it.
Forget about the victim. The victim may be too stressed and shaken to eat properly, but let’s make sure the criminal gets a balanced meal. The victim may have to pay for years of therapy, but let’s make sure the criminal gets it for free. And, of course, let’s not burden the poor criminal by making him or her pay any sort of restitution to the victim. Just because he or she committed a crime doesn’t mean he or she should be further burdened by any financial difficulties, right?
Never mind the cases too where the criminal has sued the victim, and won! So, even if you defend yourself, you still might end up being victimized, this time by the criminal with an army of lawyers behind him.
Is that freedom?
I’m not going to pretend to know the solution, but maybe if we all took some self-defense measures, if we pushed for legislation that would require criminals to pay full restitution to their victims and if we lobbied to get rid of judges that decide in favor of criminals, that might go a long way toward winning our freedom.
Sorry about what has turned into a semi-political rant, but I read this post and got to thinking that people shouldn’t have to worry about these things when they go to the library, and things took a tangent from there.
Great article Dan. Stumbled!
Thanks Alex!
I think, from reading your post, you seem to be leaning towards our current criminal justice system implementing one of many models of Restorative Justice. I wrote a post about Restorative Justice on my blog, People You’ll See In Hell.
Basically, proponents of Restorative Justice feel that the victim should have more of a participatory function in our criminal justice system. According to the Restorative Justice model, there should be an encounter between victim and offender, where the victim is given a chance to tell the offender what damage was done, and the offender is given a chance to tell the victim why he or she did what they did and how it affected them. There should be an effort on the part of the offender to provide restitution to the victim, or, if that is not a possibility, the victim is to be involved in the sentencing of the offender.
It’s an interesting theory, but I think proponents of it will need to work out some kinks relating to human nature.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
Under the current system, criminals are punished based on their perceived threat to society, not necessarily based on the harm they did to their victim. Whatever their reasons for committing the crime doesn’t change the damage that was done to the victim. In the case of theft, they can return the stuff they stole or reimburse the victim a value based on the cost of replacement, and not the fair market value.* In other cases, there may be therapy, medical expenses, etc. The burden should fall to the criminal, not the victim.
Sentencing should be left to the jury and judge, though the victims could be allowed to testify. The actual sentencing should be done by a unbiased jury and judge. Restitution can be determined based on estimates of value/replacement/repair, bills incurred, etc.
In some cases, restitution may even serve as a better deterrent than actual jail time. And, you’ll avoid stuff like people learning to be better at committing crimes by learning from professionals they encounter while in prison. For a young offender, a bill he or she has to pay off may make more of an impact than 30 days in jail. Too often, just sticking people in jail is considered sufficient. Thirty days for this, sixty days for that, a year for this. Heck, sometimes we even have non-violent offenders spending more time than violent criminals!
*In some cases, the “fair market value” of an item may not be sufficient to replace the item. This is especially important for business or any work-related equipment, automobiles or machinery. For example, an old machine may no longer be available. It’s “fair market value” may be $500, but the cost of a new machine may be $5000. Unless the victim is fortunate enough to find an available used machine for sale at $500, he’s going to need $5000 to replace it. Thus, the criminal needs to pay him $5000 rather than the “fair market value” of the equipment.
The whole problem here is that we have a prison industry in the U.S. I believe we incarcerate more people per capita than any other country on the face of the earth. A lot of people are employed by the prison industry, and, the private sector is getting involved. Repeat offenders are the bread-and-butter of the prison system, and, so, the system does what it can to keep these people alive, so that they are able to commit more crimes.. You are mugged? Too bad! You’re just another victim! Unfortunately, nothing will change as long as the general public is apathetic. I think the only reason to incarcerate someone is if they are violent and a threat to society. Property crimes should be dealt with on a restitution basis. The “War on Drugs”? If someone wants to kill themselves by using drugs, let ‘em! Decriminalize drugs and end this madness.
Am I sensing some libertarian leanings?