by Paul Schingle

Created on: April 20, 2008

Depending on the nature of the crime and how many people got hurt, any criminal should have to do the time. Anyone who says that the kind of crime Kenneth Lay committed is non-violent may be right, but how many people got taken for how much money? Then, he up and dies and no one pays for the crime. Most people would agree that the whole Enron incident was "non-violent" but does anybody agree that "no one got hurt?" I can't believe that.

Here's a better example of the point I'm trying to make. There's a kid from the shady part of town. Over the course of time, because of a lack of education, hanging out with the wrong crowd and just poor judgment, he's become a heroin addict. It's truly a shame, but it happens. Now, in order to feed his habit, the kid passes a closed jewelry store, smashes the window, grabs what he can, steals what he can and buys as much junk as he can. It's all done to feed a habit. Of course, as usually happens, he gets caught. He gets sentenced to prison time. Most people would agree this is the right thing to do. Put away a criminal who shows no respect for others' property. Perhaps that is the correct thing.

Now, we have another scenario. A wealthy white-collar fellow (in some circles, he would even be called famous) has surgery. As a routine course, after surgery, he is prescribed Oxycotin to deal with the pain. As often happens with this particular medication (a sort of artificially derived heroin), this fellow becomes addicted. Instead of breaking glass in the middle of the night, he breaks another set of laws. He has his doctor (and several other doctor friends) write multiples of prescriptions which so happens to be against the law. Now, this fellow gets caught, but what happens? He gets sentenced to a 28-day rehabilitation program and then is freed and continues to make large sums of money. Some may agree that this is fair-his crime was "non-violent." But, I submit to you that the wealthy Oxycotin junkie is no different than the street thug who's a heroin addict. The only difference is the type of crime committed to feed the habit, and the amount of money in the pocket before the crimes were committed.

Rush Limbaugh committed the above crimes in the "wealthy white-collar" scenario. He didn't do a single day in jail. What's the difference between his crime and the poor kid who breaks some glass? Well, the reasoning is the same. They've got a habit to feed. The poor kid destroyed some property and stole things that weren't his. That was wrong. Rush Limbaugh asked friends of his to put their licenses on the line by writing false prescriptions. That was wrong. They're both junkies. That may or may not be wrong, but it's a fact. Huh. Well, personally, I don't see the difference. Oh, yeah. Rush Limbaugh has money.

Should criminals convicted of non-violent crimes face jail terms? Again, it depends on the situation, but if we want a truly "equal" America, it's time for white-collar criminals to start paying for their crimes.

Learn more about this author, Paul Schingle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.