16 of 24

No

Write now Article Tools

This title is wrong it should be "Should individuals convicted of non-violent crimes face jail terms ?" unless it is discussing multiple offenders it implies that the individual is a criminal before being convicted. The implication is a "presumption of guilt" before being convicted.

"Non-violent crimes" is also the wrong term to use in association with "jail terms". The discussion of jail terms should be used in conjunction with "harm done to others" and the potential of "harm done to others". Then the drunk driver and the executive who is convicted of intentional criminal activities would both expect to be punished by serving a jail sentence. Those that speed, consume responsibly, engage a prostitute or "accidentally" committed fraud should not be subject to jail terms - victimless crimes.

One could argue that my "accidental" fraud is not victimless, I can cite a situation that might support my position. My girlfriend was convinced by a family member to get credit cards, this family member told her they would pay. At this time she had been unemployed for five years, injured and suffering from depression. I told her NOT to get the damn things, get a debit card and have him put money in it but she said this alleged brother would pay. I figured that these credit card companies would give her a start up card with maybe a $1000 limit, like they did me. A couple of years pass, apparently the jerk made minimum payments before he disappeared. Because my girlfriend put me down as a reference, these companies attached to me, she had no statements because she had sent them on to this brother. I looked at the amount and my jaw dropped, these card companies had given her a line of credit of of $10,000 each, one gave her two cards. According to the companies I would have to charge her with fraud other wise I was liable.

I thought if I were to go out on the street, say to someone that is unemployed here is $10,000 if you sign this piece of paper I would be laughed out of court if I tried to "collect" for making a bad investment. The judge would say that I knew the economic situation the individual was in and could not expect that this individual would be able to pay me back based on their history. I would expect to be questioned as to my motivations for making an agreement that compromised this individual, was my intent entrapment, two stupids do not make a right, stop wasting the courts time.

So the question is should my girlfriend or those people that fell for the ridiculous ARM's face jail time for their non-violent "crime" and the stupids that allegedly knew better not get jail time ? Then again it might be good for my girlfriend and these people to go to jail, instant medical, dental, three squares and shelter on the tax payers dime, jobs are drying up. Interesting dynamic here, just what would the population be, maybe they could build walls around cities, "city jails" and put all the "criminals" inside, apartment cells and regulate these criminals lives. Who would be outside, guess the "Masters" or "Overlords" ? We appear to be redefining what it means to be American.

I have a headache, I may have gone off on a tangent as this may be discussing the precept of second offenders, criminals, that are convicted of "non-violent" crimes.

Learn more about this author, Jowey Styxx.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should criminals convicted of non-violent crimes face jail terms??
We want to hear your view. Write now!