Mom, Come To Court So I Won't Go To Jail

In our great society of Canada, the justice system is set up to consider rehabilitation, as an alternative to incarceration. I have absolutely nothing against that, but what troubles me is this is not the case across the board so to speak.

What I mean is that social status and family support—or the lack thereof—has a huge determining factor in what an "appropriate" sentence should and/or will be. I find it absolutely appalling that a person with greater financial means is able to serve a sentence in the community, while someone with no support—financial or otherwise—will be off to jail. In alot of young offender cases, the judge will ask the accused if they have a parent or family member present. If they do and the crime was non-violent—even if it is the 50th time they have been charged for this type of offense—they will be more than likely be home for supper and laughing on the phone with their friends later that night.

Adult court is a tad different, with the "mom" being replaced by the almighty dollar. We all see it everyday, a local business person embezzles $200,000 from a huge corporation, gets busted and hires the most prominent attorney they can. After promising not to do it again, they are handed a community based sentence and restitution that doesn't even come close to what they are accused of stealing in the first place. Ten minutes later a down and out person is sentenced to two years for forging a $200 check by the same judge.

One could argue that the down and out person is more at risk to re-offend so that is why they received incarceration. However, you could also argue that their crime was most likely a crime of necessity—be it drugs, or for food, or whatever—while the business person's crime was simply for profit. Perhaps the reason the business person is less likely to re-offend is that he's still sitting on half the bounty from his crime? What will the cost to society be when that cash runs out?

I also must stress than in all likelihood this is the first time the business person has been on the wrong side of the law, and the not-so-well-off criminal has more than likely been in trouble repetitively.

But, let's analyze the situation a little closer.

The business person had to commit many crimes to accomplish their goal and only stopped because they were caught. However, to make things simpler it is all summed up in a charge of fraud and maybe a couple of other similar charges, even though a huge number of criminal acts were probably committed and subsequently discovered. Not to mention that this person has been displaying criminal behavior for an extending amount of time, and has only stopped because their scheme was discovered and is no longer operable.

The down and out person because of either a lack of resource or intelligence committed many criminal acts as well, but not having the resources or intelligence to try to disguise their crimes, they have been caught many times along the way. So on paper they are more likely to re-offend and thus, in societies eyes should be incarcerated.

I ask the question though, who would you rather have out in society: The business person, a person that is smart enough to blind side huge companies and pilfer huge amounts of money. Go home to their families and have a good night sleep every night, dreaming of his/her next big purchase all disguised as a contributing member of society? Or a down and out struggling member of society, that has no ability to "pull a fast one" on anyone, let alone the entire criminal justice system?

In my opinion neither. They should both be in jail. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, and their support base—be it money or family—should never be a deciding factor in their punishment. The old adage of "you do the crime, you do the time" seems only to apply if you do not have the necessary means to "pay" up front.

Like this article? Subscribe and get Too Real articles sent directly to your feed reader or, if that isn't your thing, rock your inbox with an email subscription.