Allusion to a popular game, Monopoly) to a criminal is utterly ludicrous. The fact that convicted murderers, for example, are allowed to swim in a brimming ocean of innocent people makes a blatant statement about the proportionality between the crime and the punishment given. To illustrate this idea, here is an example as follows. It is the day of the trial, and the defendant walks up to the stand to make his last claim of innocence. The judge and jury rule him as guilty, as the evidence clearly shows that he killed four people while driving under the influence of alcohol. For the murder of four innocent people, this person is sentenced ten years of… probation? Probation is essentially allowing the offender to be free, provided that they are under the supervision of a specialist. Reading something this absurd deserves a double take. This is the gist of a familiar case to several people, commonly known as the “affluenza case.” The reason that the offender solely receives probation is the fact that he and his parents claim nobody educated the offender about drunk driving. He allegedly did not know any better. Disregarding the fact that that is the most outlandish proposition that one could make, ten years of probation just does not fit the crime committed. The punishment for killing four people while driving with an abnormal amount of alcohol in the bloodstream should not be taken so lightly as to reprimand the offender with probation and rehabilitation. The most frightening aspect is that this is only one of the several cases where the convicted person walks away with minor scratches. Harsher punishment in some cases is necessary to demonstrate the severity of consequences, so people learn to avoid committing crime. Criminals should not be allowed to walk away knowing that they are untouchable. If someone commits a crime, proper punishment is essential in order to implement law into
Allusion to a popular game, Monopoly) to a criminal is utterly ludicrous. The fact that convicted murderers, for example, are allowed to swim in a brimming ocean of innocent people makes a blatant statement about the proportionality between the crime and the punishment given. To illustrate this idea, here is an example as follows. It is the day of the trial, and the defendant walks up to the stand to make his last claim of innocence. The judge and jury rule him as guilty, as the evidence clearly shows that he killed four people while driving under the influence of alcohol. For the murder of four innocent people, this person is sentenced ten years of… probation? Probation is essentially allowing the offender to be free, provided that they are under the supervision of a specialist. Reading something this absurd deserves a double take. This is the gist of a familiar case to several people, commonly known as the “affluenza case.” The reason that the offender solely receives probation is the fact that he and his parents claim nobody educated the offender about drunk driving. He allegedly did not know any better. Disregarding the fact that that is the most outlandish proposition that one could make, ten years of probation just does not fit the crime committed. The punishment for killing four people while driving with an abnormal amount of alcohol in the bloodstream should not be taken so lightly as to reprimand the offender with probation and rehabilitation. The most frightening aspect is that this is only one of the several cases where the convicted person walks away with minor scratches. Harsher punishment in some cases is necessary to demonstrate the severity of consequences, so people learn to avoid committing crime. Criminals should not be allowed to walk away knowing that they are untouchable. If someone commits a crime, proper punishment is essential in order to implement law into