The Supreme Court recently handed down a case holding that a passenger in a vehicle can be frisked during a traffic stop provided that the officer has reasonable suspicion that the passenger could possibly be armed and dangerous. This could be good...this could be bad. I'm not a fan of the criminal mind, but at the same time I don't exactly trust law enforcement to the fullest extent either.
When I started typing this post, I was going to elaborate on my views of the outcome of the Supreme Court decision. I got too bored with the first paragraph, so onto my views of criminal punishment instead (much more exciting)...
You'll never catch me dealing with criminal law because, quite frankly, I support the idea that much harsher punishment should be available within our legal system. Sending folks to the Pen is a waste of time. I don't want to pay tax dollars to feed those that steal what I've earned. And screw the three-strike rule. I vote for the 10 strike rule...chop a finger off each time one of these convicts thieves an innocent person. By the time they're down to two thumbs, the ability to steal becomes non-existent. If they get busted running from the cops, eliminate a leg...that ought to slow them down. My 10 strike rule is obviously a little extreme and out of jest, but it does provide a solution to the overpopulation of penal institutions. After all, it only takes a handful of inmates to produce the yearly supply of license plates and roadside trash collection services.
People are too politically correct nowadays. What happened to the firing squads? The argument goes: they're people too, they have feelings and rights, blah, blah, blah. I support leveling the playing field just like Obama. However, my leveling begins with harsher punishment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment