Monday, August 10, 2009

restitution vs. prison: crime doesn't pay but it should pay back those who are harmed (as possible)

Debbie Harbeson in the News/Tribune on the Parrish/Mosier "road rage" case, making the point that restitution is preferable-- ethically and practically-- to prison.

Interestingly, the Old Testament provides the same prescription. See: Exodus 22:5-6, Exodus 22:12, Leviticus 6:5, Numbers 5:5-7.

Think about it, especially in the context of crimes done against other individuals. Not only is money taken from all of us to house the criminal in a prison-- but money is taken from the victim!

A jury of her peers found that Yalanda Parrish over-reacted to Wesley Mosier’s actions and used unreasonable force to defend herself.

This mistake in judgment caused serious harm to another human being, and at this point most people agree that something further needs to be done. However, Ms. Parrish should definitely not go to jail.

It makes no sense for society at large to shake its finger at her and say in effect, “Lady, you were wrong and by golly we’re going to show you — we’re going to have the government take more of our money so we can pay to clothe, house and feed you for X number of years.”

That’s not a very smart way to treat law-abiding citizens, and it’s even worse for the actual victim of the aggression. Certainly, there are situations where the only choice may be a long jail sentence, but this is not one of them.

As a matter of fact, this is a perfect situation to use restitution as an alternative to merely throwing people into overcrowded jails when they cause harm to another individual.

Restitution is simply an attempt to repair the damage caused by someone’s actions. This is a much more logical solution, because it imposes direct consequences that are related to the actual harm caused.

Parrish acted aggressively and caused harm to Mosier, therefore she owes restitution to him....it certainly makes sense that, rather than sit in jail, Parrish would instead work to pay Mosier back in monetary terms. It’s clear she can never take him back to where he was before she pulled the trigger. [But] Jail won’t do that either....

2 Comments:

At August 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM , Blogger gmartin said...

i agree that restitution should be required whenever possible, but not sure, in this case at least, that it shouldn't be in conjunction with a prison sentence. for pete's sake, she shot the man in the chest at very close range. she created a dangerous situation, could've killed him and for that i feel punishment by way of a prison sentence would be appropriate. and i know it maybe hearsay, but there are reports that this isn't the first time that she's been trigger happy. perhaps some training in anger/crisis management might be appropriate too.

 
At August 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM , Blogger Lissie-Beth said...

How about an 8 to 5 workday, garnished wages and some type of "house arrest"?

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home