| Why is it when a conservative of wealth and means is tried and convicted for a crime, there's howling for understanding and clemency? While Roni Kay O'Dell's letter to the Gazette decrying the sentencing for con-man Pat Davison is admittedly the only of its kind I've seen for this particular conservative, you could substitute "Scooter Libby" for "Pat Davison" and come up with one of a bejillion pleas for a pardon for that particular convicted felon.
Whatever happened to the old-fashioned notions of being tough on crime, of personal responsibility, so often batted about on issues like drug use or welfare reform?
Or are these values that are applied only to the poor?
When Roni Kay O'Dell writes, "Are we to lock up everyone who commits nonviolent crimes on the premise that their unethical behavior merits complete exclusion from society?" do you think she means a habitual crack user?
Me, neither.
I'm not against reforming draconian drug laws. In fact, I'm all for it. As Tom Siebel rightly notes, treatment, not incarceration is the key for the scourge of drug use.
White collar crime, on the other hand, has effects just as bad as burglary, and more often worse. Davison bilked people of millions. If you'd asked the victims, they'd probably have preferred to have been robbed at gunpoint for twenty bucks or have had their DVD player nipped while they were away for a long weekend.
In any case, I'm open to discussion on sentencing guidelines for crimes. We should always be having that discussion. But I'm wholeheartedly against having different legal codes for different people based on their standing in society.
(Hat tip to Dave Crisp, who summed it up much more eloquently than me.) |
