Crime and Punishment

I'm going to touch on five beliefs I have about Crime and Justice.
Excluding the last one....
Democrats will most-likely agree with 1/4 of the following
Republicans, 3/4
Logical individuals, well, they will agree with anything and everything I say because I wouldn't say it unless it were true.

Crime and Rehabilitation (A more liberal view of mine)
Too often I hear the phrase, "Crime and Punishment." The media loves that phrase. Truthfully, most top prisons have the underlying goal to rehabilitate the worthless tobacco chewing, doorknob caressing, children eating pieces of constipated fecal matter in prisons, the prisoners. Prisoners are not always bad though.
Oftentimes, people in prison earn scholarships and become pure and find god. Whether you believe in God or not, if you were to be placed in a random cell with a prisoner who could do whatever they wanted to you for an hour and you had a choice, you would choose the prisoner who has a Bible sitting next to his bed.

America set prisons up in order to control the crazies out there who want to harm others. As a whole, the government isn't concerned about punishing individual prisoners. While I'm not saying we should give them popcorn and sex, I am saying that it would be better to have rehabilitated prisoners than prisoners who have to stay in a cell for the rest of our and their lives and suck up the people's tax money.

You can watch the "Shawshank Redemption" if you want an understanding of what I'm talking about. Or watch the Discovery Channel episodes about penitentiaries.

Brain Surgery.
I was going to say prisoners should be given a chance to choose to have the portion of their brain removed that causes anger, but I did some research. This sums it up neatly.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Iskander.html
If we ever did find it though, the prisoners should be able to earn money through community service to get the operation.

Tattoo
The truth you are about to read might and should upset you. It deals with child molestation.
All sex offenders should have a sex offender tattoo on their foreheads, especially people who commit sexual assault on children.
I know this sounds mean and 'insensitiiiiivveeee', but think about (scenario) how he lifted up Taylor's shirt, held her/his small body down and punched their face several times and then forced his fingers under their underwear and into their genetailia. All the while Taylor screaming for her mommy/daddy but he takes his big, bear hand, grabs her/him by the mouth and brutally rams their head into the ground. Taylor is trembling in fear and pain, but the molester could care less. He's just happy the child has helped him make is filthy penis stiff again.

That's your child I'm talking about. Think about that. These child assaulters I'm talking about are fucking lunatics!! I'm getting pissed (my blood is boiling) just writing a scenario like this. Your blood should be boiling too.

But wait. We have to be sensitiiiiivvve and let Mr. Crotch out of prison to meet another family. Not only that, but we're not going to give the public any IMMEDIATE way to know how dangerous this man can be. Sure, you can check sex offender databases, but if even ONE child could avoid something horrible like that from happening to them by enacting a law for tattoo warnings, than by God it's worth it.

Attempted Murder Versus Murder.
I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, (because I truly believe absolutely nothing is original to everybody) but it's an idea I've never heard anyone else touch on.
Lets say Robert draws his gun and shouts to a police officer, "I be goin' ta smoke ya dead ya damn 5-0 (cop) and shit!!" He then fires his gun and the bullet grazes the officer's ear lobe. Robert's second shot gives the officer a free root-canal, but everyone is alright.

OR

Andy commits a drive-by shooting. He doesn't kill anyone. They find written information proving he had the intent to kill, but as you know, he failed.
He will be charged with attempted murder. Should he be charged with that? Hell no!
Robert should be charged with First degree murder. In case you don't know...
The following is straight from WikiPedia.

First-degree murder (or murder in the first degree, or colloquially, murder one)
refers to premeditated murder, or murder which occurs after some degree of reflection by the murderer. This reflection can be years or less than a second.

Second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter refers to
murder done without thought in the heat of the moment, or in some states after "adequate provocation".

There's a good reason Andy should be charged with murder. Andy tried to murder. He had the balls to do it and he acted on his decision.
Let's say Mike did the same and had succeeded.
Here are the fully controllable circumstances; Andy tried to murder. He had the balls to do it and he acted on his decision. What happens after the bullet leaves the gun is beyond his control. The bullet might and might not hit the target. It's all chance.
They both did the same physical actions, one got lucky and one didn't.

^Read it again.

Each man is as dangerous as the other. The only possible disputable difference would be that Mike has a mentality of "I've killed someone."

It might be easier for him to do it again. Other than that, they did the same exact thing. You must look at it from a viewpoint using logic rather than emotion (unlike the child molester scenario). Child molesters cannot change.

Drunk Driving

Tammy the tacky toothpick-tramp drove her fancypants hatchback home from the bar. Tammy was followed home and is about to lose her fugly-ass car.

Here's a cruddy shop.

If you are caught driving drunk, you should have your car taken by the cops and the money should go to needy children and/or the city. A few towns have tried this. The ones who have had an EXTREMELY significant change in the number of drunk drivers.

Apparently knowing you could run into an innocent person while driving drunk isn't enough to put them in the passenger's seat.