Proper Punishment = Balanced Budget

Excuse me if my math is wrong; I did attend, proudly, public school. The justice system in the United States is pathetic in terms of actual justice. From the ordinary citizen to law enforcement, this is not a revelation. John Q. Nobody serves a mandatory maximum sentence – commonly without the possibility of parole – for felony possession of a few grams of recreational-use marijuana, while child murderers and cop killers plea bargain lighter sentences and walk free after a few years thanks to “good behavior.” How is it that the crime of murder, especially those confessed and unremorsed, do not carry an automatic death penalty?

With Eye Toward Savings, Assembly Takes Up Prison Terms

Life Without Parole For Shepard; Jury Decides Against Death Sentence In Killing Of Officer

Father of Murdered 5-Year-Old Says He'll Make Sure Killer Suffers Same Fate

Across the nation, local and state governments are in the midst of budget crises, as the federal government attempts to prevent a shutdown thanks to its own financial woes. Want to balance these budgets? First, stop spending taxpayer money on incarcerated murderers guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and do to them what they did to their victims. Such scum deserves neither to live nor benefit from society’s moral goodwill. In this way, we can literally kill two birds with one stone:  balance the budget and thin the population of those who forfeited their lives the second they took another’s.

A balanced budget is what taxpayers want; justice is what society demands. Frankly, the argument that a sentence of “life in prison” is cheaper than a one-time execution has never seemed economically sound. Must be the new math. Before the 20th century, there was no such thing as the national deficit. At least, people did not concern themselves with it. Justice was also swift, and unremitting for the most heinous. Probably because rope and bullets are cheap. As Charlie Sheen might say, sounds like a winning proposition.

©2011 Steve Sagarra