Dear Friends,
It seems to me, this should be obvious and go without saying, but I think it must be said… punishment for a crime should depend on its harm to civil society. By that measure, murder, since it is highly corrosive of civil society, must be punished severely. While shop lifting is harmful, it is no where near as destructive, and so shouldn’t be punished as severely. Some would argue along the lines of Draco, that all crime is destructive of civil society and thus all crimes, no matter how small, should be punished as severely as possible. Which would be a valid argument… if anyone who ever made it was willing to lead by example. Instead, we have a system that punishes depending on the crime’s effect on the political establishment’s power. Perhaps the worst possible system.
Draconian punishments are the bailiwick of despots. No one who ever made that argument ever thought it a good standard for themselves or their loved ones. Which, by the measure of the Golden Rule, makes such punishments unjust by definition. Law must make allowances for a multitude of aspects of crime. The novel Les Miserables explored this subject in a narrative format. Yet today the January 6 protesters, not the violent or the ringleaders, they were under the guidance of the FBI, but the peasants who were waved in by the Capital Police, are going on 7 months in prison, without bail, trial, and in solitary confinement… with no end in sight. Life is a draconian punishment for peaceably assembling for a redress of grievances. Even as Fauci’s perjury kills people and destroys civil society itself.
Since law is written by the political establishment, it follows they write it to increase their wealth, power and prestige. Some would claim, “The elite became the elite through merit. That alone should be enough to let them operate without any oversight but their own. That is the way human society has worked since the dawn of time.” However, since they are human beings, they cannot be trusted, just like they don’t trust you or I. Being humans, they are subject to the same sinful nature we all are, just without any limit, because of the lack of oversight, power that writing the law bestows and the wealth accumulated from it. That is why they write laws that have limited punishments for their crimes, despite the unimaginable harm their crimes do to civil society.
Which brings us to the main point, that punishment should fit the crime, if a system is to attempt at justice. This logic is corroded by the self interests of those that write the laws. They are happy to use draconian persecution as punishment, for the least violation of their edicts, while they themselves are not held to any law whatsoever… unless the people rise up and demand it. Even then they get hand slapped, where we would get fifty years in a penitentiary. Moreover, the punishment meted out for crime, rather than depending on the crime, depends on the criminal. The poor and politically disfavored always get punished far more severely than the rich, and especially the politically favored… like ANTIFA and BLM. Proving that our system, today, doesn’t serve justice but is a political expedient.
Law is ostensibly constructed to create justice. While it is NEVER used for that purpose, its next best use, is to protect civil society from those who would undermine it. Sadly, today it is used to enforce political dogma, rather than protect civil society. This is a use of law that not only undermines justice but actually harms civil society. Since we follow our leaders, and they are clearly absolutely corrupt, we will comply, and be corrupt ourselves. Leading to them needing to increase the penalty for crimes, to counter the effect of their corruption on society. Yet their unlimited corruption will undermine any attempts at stopping crime. Eventually, under such a system, law must become a tool of oppression. It all starts with punishment no longer fitting the crime… but the politically desired outcome.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
