By Richard C. Evey
Libertarian/Patriot
The platform of the Libertarian Party states “We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrong doer.”
To this end, if someone takes, damages, harms or destroys my property, they, the wrong doer, owes me restitution. That restitution would be payment, return of property or making the property whole again, if possible.
That being said: someone takes my life, my property, that person owes me restitution. I may be dead but do I not deserve restitution for loss of my property, my life, my right to live? It will not return me to life but they took my life, should they not give up their life?
People take property, destroy property to the point that it could never be returned to it’s original state. Restitution must be paid, one way or the other.
If the wrong doer is slam dunk guilty of the crime of depriving me of my property, my life, does not that person owe me restitution, their life? When that form of restitution is made then the guilty should and must suffer the same fate that their victim suffered. To call it state-sanctioned revenge, is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. Confusing the issue with double speak is not facing the issue of restitution to the victim.
There are people who’s conviction can, should, could and must be looked into for the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The justice system is very flawed. The people who committed the crime and those who facilitate the justice system must be held accountable.
I have always though that if there is a miscarriage of justice, the person or persons who took part or had dealings in that miscarriage, should have to make restitution to the victim and be held accountable. That restitution could be the same fate that the accused faced.
If a person is slam dunk guilty of a crime they must give restitution to their victim. That includes their life if they took a life.
The United States Constitution states in the Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The type of punishment inflicted on people back when our founders set up the constitution was unforgivable. Compare the criminals of today, they are having a church social. The opinion that the criminal should not have to suffer (prison or death) is bleeding heart CRAP.
Those that preach that criminals should not be in prison, we should not have the death penalty or prison should be a place of reeducation/ relearning are you identifying with the criminal element. Many people in prison are better off than most people on the outside.
People must look inside of themselves and look to the victim. Make themselves the victim. In short make the crime personal. Would you want the person who killed your spouse/ child walking the street, living near your home so you can help them? Would you want a rapist, one who raped you, your spouse, your child, walking the street, living next to you?
These criminals are lower than snake spit. There is little to nothing that can help them. They are just plain evil and they deserve nothing except prison or giving of their life for what they took.
If you are in favor of restitution but against the death penalty than you are very hypocritical.
Restitution must be paid!
2 Comments
October 15, 2009 at 2:09 pm
You make a very good point – that the justice system could be more about restitution than some kind of pointless retribution.
In my mind, restitution is about making right what was done wrong. I can run with a wrong-doing having to make restitution, having to fix what was broken or otherwise make right what was wrong to the extent that’s possible. I’m not sure that killing a murderer sets anything right. That seems more like retribution than restition. The Viking idea of weir-gilt (which I’m probably misspelling) seems relvant here. If you killed someone, you had to pay that person’s family enough to compensate for the lost labor and support the victim would have provided.
I think the case for capital punishment is less about restitution and more about just consequences, or possibly a need to remove an unforgivable criminal. I don’t think I particularly subscribe to the latter, but a good case can be made under either concept.
November 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Genesis 9:5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
This passage speaks directly to the idea of restitution (reckoning). But the offense itself is not against the murdered, nor his family, nor society at large, but against God. And God has appointed the state as a minister of his wrath (Romans 13) to carry out this purpose.