Illegal immigration harms us all in many ways. The end result is that illegal immigration is costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars per year supporting immigrants who have chosen to enter our country through illegal means. We are paying health care costs that will never be repaid, we are allowing food stamps and other life necessities to be obtained freely, and we are allowing cash only workers subvert the job market. Everything an illegal immigrant does harms each and every American citizen. They NEVER pay a single cent in government taxes but receive monetary benefits from our taxpayer funded programs.

You may say that the illegal immigrant fills a low paying job need and that without these workers, thousands of small business owners will be run out of business and the ramifications felt by this would be worse than “supporting” the existence of an illegal immigrant workforce. I say you are wrong. Why should certain business owners be “allowed” to circumvent the rules and regulations all LEGAL business owners must abide by? Why are they deemed so important that their accounting practices are overlooked and pushed to the side because their workforce is made up of illegal immigrants? In my opinion, illegal immigrants are in fact a government subsidy.

A company employing a workforce of illegal immigrants doesn’t have to pay any taxes on their wages which in turn, affects every citizen and business owner who does. The worker doesn’t pay any government taxes on their income which in turn, affects every citizen and business owner who does. The harm is being done because of their failure to pay taxes like every LEGAL immigrant and citizen must do.

You may say they are poor people who need the money to survive and they need it to send to their destitute family across the border. While that may be true, the net effect of that being true creates even more harm on the American tax payer. If they are in fact, sending their money back home, that money is leaving our economy and entering a foreign market. Is that helping our local economy or national economy in any way? I don’t think so.

America has long been the sought after Holy Grail for foreigners looking to upgrade their lives. American borders are open to anyone who wants to legally enter our country unless you are a terrorist or citizen of a militant adversary. Given that we ACCEPT people who want to legally enter our borders, illegal immigrants have no rational argument to stand upon. If our borders were summarily closed for an irrational arbitrary reason, I can see a potential argument for illegal immigration into a country where you can sustain your family and live without fear of starvation. But, that is not the case.

Some politicians want to immediately deport any illegal immigrant within our borders. We are building a massive wall along our border to help stifle the influx of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican/American border. Other politicians want to immediately give legal citizenship to all illegal immigrants. I have an idea that can suit everyone.

Finish the wall and hire the necessary security force to patrol it. Immediately issue tax identification numbers to ALL illegal immigrants with a stipulation that they MUST complete proper immigration paperwork within 6-12 months or they are promptly deported with no return for a minimum of three years. ALL illegal immigrants are fingerprinted and checked against international and national criminal databases BEFORE being given their tax id. ALL business owners who continue to employ illegal immigrants after 12 months will be IRS audited and their taxes will be raised 25% on income before taxes for a minimum of three years to pay for their accrued past “savings.” After three years, the business will be audited again and if illegal immigrants are still employed or have been in the three year period, the business owner is sent to jail for 2-5 years for tax evasion.

It’s pretty simple. Shore up our borders to make sure the illegal immigrants aren’t allowed entry, allow legal immigrants to enjoy their entry into America, and punish the businesses who employ immigrants and immediately gain tax dollars from the current population of illegal immigrants. Can you think of anything that would be fairer? By fair, I mean not offering government handouts like immediate legal immigrant citizenship or by failing to collect taxes upon the revenue generated by the illegal workforce. The legal citizens of our country deserve fairness and until we correct the illegal immigration problem, we are subsidizing thousands of business and over 11 million illegal immigrants in our country.

Recently, I decided to rent the movie “The Strangers.” One of its calling cards was the “inspired by true events” label. The Strangers is a suspense driven look into two people’s lives that were terrorized by three masked intruders and eventually murdered. The movie does a great job creating and stirring your fear by drawing you into the situation as if you were there with the innocent victims. At each turn, you are left with a question of “What would you do” or “How would you react?” “Knowing” the story was inspired by true events, you are connected with the victims. You are feeling their fear, their suspense, and their dread of the unknown outside the door. In a sense, you become the victim of the event.

Feeling impressed by the movie and sitting in wonderment about the true life event, I decided to hit the internet and do some research on the actual events the movie was based upon. I wanted to know more about the victims and find out if the murderers were ever identified or caught (the movie implied they were going to victimize other innocents in the future). Expecting to find some criminal reports or similarity to a crime report, what I found was completely unexpected.

While the movie was established as being “inspired by true events,” the true events were actually fiction. The entire movie was a farce, not a single moment of truth. It turned out to be a random work of fiction from a writer who was inspired by a childhood event which was in fact, nothing like the movie. While the movie focuses upon a completely random murder event involving a couple in a remote area, the true events came from the director’s childhood. As a child, someone came to his house asking for a person that did not live there. He later found out other houses in the neighborhood had been robbed. The people were checking for empty houses to rob…

No murders, no couple, no true event here. The directory has blatantly utilized the true event tagline to drive people to his movie. While being a great marketing tool, it left me feeling a backlash of resentment towards the director. Why resort to such deceitfulness over something so trivial? The movie was good without the moniker of “inspired by true events.” It was unnecessary to throw in the inspired statement. The movie would have worked with or without it.

But now, knowing that I’ve been “duped” by this movie maker, I feel a bit used by him. I know that Hollywood takes liberties when dealing with true story events and they often fictionalize them up in an effort to add entertainment value, but this was blatant disregard for the event in itself. There was zero true event reality with this story. It’s fine to make a movie, but to try and “Blair Witch” the public is a coward’s way out in an effort to make some money.

The Strangers was a very good movie, but know this, it’s a fiction story inspired by a screenwriter trying to make a buck.

That is the premise of the story as tragic as it is. The problem I have is what happened afterwards. Of course the mother was arrested for child endangerment and she pled guilty to the charges. Custody of the child now belongs with the grandmother. What consequences does a guilty plea draw in this case? How about zero jail time and one year of probation with an added requirement of submitting to “scrutiny” by the local drug rehab center to deal with her marijuana “issues.”

I am all for not breaking up families and doing our utmost to preserve the integrity of the family, but sometimes, things just need to be done to protect our children from their parents. It’s sad yes, but it’s a reality. Why did the judge decide that the young mother did not need jail time as part of her transgression? He believes her “evidence of remorse” was enough to outweigh her need for jail time.

Unless the criminal is a psychopath or sociopath, they ALL display remorse… some more than others, but even the absolutely insane criminal can even fake remorse. I’m not saying she was faking by any means, I’m sure she was absolutely distraught by her mistake which could have taken the life of her child. However, the one person in charge of the well being of the child endangered the life of that child as a result of her actions. Mistake or not, mistakes sometimes bring dire consequences because of the results of those mistakes.

In this case, the child almost DIED! She had better show an overabundance of remorse. What other kind of reaction to this situation would be acceptable? A simple “I’m sorry” or “I’ll be a better parent” would never be good enough. This isn’t a case of forgetting to sign your child up for summer baseball league. This is a mistake that almost took a life.

The judge in this case is being far too lenient in my opinion. Maybe all of our criminals should take this “remorse” defense into account. Plead guilty, but make sure you cry your eyes out and try and turn your life around because hey, if you’re sorry, that’s good enough right? Accident or not, mistake or not, wrong time and wrong place maybe, but you still must pay for your mistakes under such drastic circumstances.

So, with all things being relative, this particular case makes several crimes below it much more “palatable.” Why should people receive a speeding ticket if they are sorry? Why should someone be arrested for assaulting someone if they made a mistake and shook hands afterward? Why should someone who steals a shirt from the store be arrested if they are too poor to buy it but are very sorry they have resorted to such measures? I’m sure you understand. If you can almost kill your own child by your own neglect and not face any real punishment, what crimes under that theoretical line are deemed ok by being “remorseful?”

Remorse is a guarantee for any rational wrongdoer with or without punishment. But sometimes, punishment is necessary because of the gravity of the situation. The mother received the equivalent of a “time out” in this situation. She deserved her consequences and she pled guilty, case closed.

Citation: http://www.foxnews.com/

Premise of the situation is as follows. Man facing dire economic conditions has a choice: pay his house mortgage or pay for his lawn to be replaced. Now, I’m fairly certain any rational homeowner would make the sane choice in this manner and pay his house mortgage. The man of course paid his mortgage and allowed his lawn to deteriorate into a brownish display of dead grass. Wouldn’t we all? Well, his brown grass created such an outrage in his community that he was served a notice requiring his appearance in court to settle the damage created by his “criminal action.”

Like any good citizen not bullied into following the rules and regulations of those who wield power as if it’s a magic wand, he didn’t appear in court. The local judge, “enraged” by the citizen’s use of free will, decided that it was appropriate to arrest and jailed the man for 2 days. Contempt of court, show up or be jailed. Seriously… arrested, finger printed, photographed, entered into the criminal database and jailed for 2 days over a brown lawn? Yes, it actually happened.

How can something so simple be allowed to reach this level of absurdity? How hard would it have been for the Civic Association to work with the man in an effort to settle this issue without it going to court? Knowing that he is a retired individual living on limited resources, they should have understood the situation and worked on a human level to help correct the issue. However, their “rules are rules” approach led to this man being treated like a second rate individual.

A testament to the fact that humanity and rational thinking still exists, a man and several volunteers helped the man replace his lawn and make it a nice shade of compliant “green.” Who was this kind gentleman? He was a former resident and former Marine who felt the man was treated unfairly. Thank goodness for some basic common sense in our uncommon sense world.

How much time was wasted because of this lunacy? How much money did it cost taxpayers by having the courts and law enforcement involved in this “incident?” Why did this man have to be demeaned in front of his neighbors, his family, and country because of his lawn? Sometimes I just cannot fathom what our judicial system is used for when there are actual criminals roaming the streets because they don’t have the time to charge and prosecute them or place to keep them jailed.

Can’t these matters be taken care of without laws, rule books, and police involvement? Can’t we act as rational adults and work these things out without someone with a gun enforcing the “law?” Weren’t we taught in school, and even as toddlers, the ideas of compromise and helping others? Since when did we become accustomed to a third party being necessary to mediate all disagreements or arguments? I’m pretty sure people are generally smart enough to work things out in an agreeable manner without help from an “objective” third party.

We need common sense to return. Without it, we are nothing bunch a bunch of crying babies asking for mommy and daddy to come solve our problems because we didn’t get what we wanted. Next thing I know, I’ll be reading about a grandma being arrested because she left her laundry on the line for 2 days when it clearly states in the bylaws of the subdivision that all laundry must be removed 30 minutes prior to dusk. Oh, you think that won’t happen? Did you think someone would go to jail because their grass was dead before you read this?

Citation: http://www.nypost.com/

Now, I don’t know if it’s just me, but I remember long ago while in school, this particular action occurred on a routine basis. People generally invade other people’s space and even though it may not be the best course of action, pushing someone away from you is a fairly standard response. Should we criminally charge and prosecute our youngsters for such dastardly acts of lawlessness? This entire situation is a result of someone’s feelings being hurt and it’s a “get back” issue. Oh, did I mention that person “A” was a star football player and person “B” was a female and the incident occurred at a nightclub?

What a heinous crime. The football player should be locked up and the key thrown away or melted down. He should never see the light of day again. I mean, how could he do such a thing? I’ll turn the sarcasm off now. Even the crime report calls this a “simple-assault” charge. Why are we so intent on litigating every single action human beings can engage in? Next thing I know, I’ll be reading about a lawsuit or criminal charge brought against someone for butting into the line at Subway or for going through the quick checkout line with too many items.

Our society has routinely tried to make sure that every aspect of our life is protected. But, we don’t seem to mind that murderers are continually freed from prison. We don’t mind that rapists are set free every day. We don’t mind that sex offenders are allowed early release for “good behavior.” We don’t mind. Why don’t we mind about such truly heinous criminal behavior but we seem to care about such trivial aspects of life?

I have no idea and thus the reason for my utter and complete state of awe regarding this particular crime. I suppose we are all criminals because I can guarantee that at some point in your life, you have pushed someone who was in your space. Did you hurt their feelings? I’m sure you did. Did you deserve to be charged and prosecuted while facing a potential 6 month term in jail? Of course not. Female person “B” in this case was likely rebuffed in her attempts to gain the attention of the star football player and his reaction to the situation was to push her away. He pushed her away with an open hand against the side of the head. Was there criminal malice or intent to injure? I think not.

She had her feelings hurt and thus she decided to make him “pay” for his lack of interest. I’m sure she also knew his history with previous domestic run-ins and that made this a clear cut case for her to “win.” What does she get out of this? More than likely, she will receive nothing monetarily since she was not injured or “damaged” psychologically. However, she will prove her point (whatever that may be) and win. She will have proven that he should not have rebuffed her advances.

Is that what our legal and justice system is about? Proving points? I surely hope not. These types of cases and laws on the books only bloat the judicial system. They cost our country both in time lost and in money spent. We should be worrying about prosecuting the real criminals and correcting our punishments attributed to certain crimes. I say this but I know things will not change so I wait… I wait for another jaw dropping story to turn up (which I can guarantee will happen) and I faithfully promise to write about it.

Citation: http://www.ksdk.com/

AIG felt that a $440,000 vacation was necessary for its executives to relax and come back recharged for the trek back to respectability. Oh, you didn’t know that to come back completely refreshed, it requires about $23,000 on spa treatments to clear the mind? I’m sorry. I just assumed it was a natural cost expenditure of a company retreat… All sarcasm aside, how can anyone in their right mind believe this is an appropriate use of funds when a company has failed, and is failing?

Of course there are untold counts of other companies leeching cash from their coffers to fund similar pursuits. I’m sure they are hidden within the accounting ledger and written off as sales events, customer appreciation, or working retreats. But, how can a company propped up by taxpayer money be allowed to do something so blatantly wrong? The government OWNS 80% of AIG as it stands right now. Ownership implies specific rights. One of those rights includes the ability to fire employees.

Each and every participant and decision maker of this venture should be fired immediately, escorted from their offices, and required to pay back every penny of their misuse of funds. In my opinion, what they did is a form of embezzlement. They have appropriated funds from the company for their own personal use and gain. Did the shareholders (American citizens at this point) agree to send these people on their luxury jaunt? Would we EVER? Of course not…

However, as our lawmakers fume and posture in the halls of Washington, will justice be served? Will we see those who have slapped the face of those who have helped them be rewarded with their justified consequences? I can only hope so. AIG has just given a black eye to the companies who truly need federal assistance to survive. Can people not do what is right even when we are in some of the darkest financial times our generation has ever experienced? Is it too much to ask that executives actually come to work and perform their duties without receiving golden parachutes worth millions whether the company survives or fails? Is it too much to ask that executives, when running a failing company, “give up” their luxury items and take vacations like normal American citizens? Or better yet, not take them at all because they can’t afford them…

The solution to this problem is complete oversight of taxpayer money being given to these bailed out companies. Without that, there will be countless millions of dollars wasted, we know that. Greed cannot be fixed even with failure. When we are shown and faced with this greed, we must take the next step and weed these individuals and groups from within these companies and start anew. AIG is the one who has been caught. They have made our lawmakers stand up and take notice because of their blatant disregard for what is right.

Our lawmakers must remove these “leaders” and require immediate repayment for their actions. Any less and they are in a sense, advocating what they have done. Fire them, fire them now. This is not a political debate of any kind, this is a human debate. Do what’s right because it’s the right thing to do. These employees of AIG have shown their true colors of greed and we have been shown why their company was failing in the first place. Greed eventually consumes and destroys. AIG is just one simple case. Their flaunting of greed is astounding. We can only hope that our lawmakers do what is right and reverse the damage AIG has done.

Citation: http://www.cnn.com/

The “workplace” can be many different places and it doesn’t necessarily only include your place of employment. Professionalism exists in many aspects of our lives and as adults, we are responsible for knowing when and where we are within these situations. However, we can all agree professionalism is required at work. How we conduct ourselves within the workplace affects everyone around us, including our customers. Deviation from this workplace standard is unacceptable.

Recently, I ran across an article coming out of the United Kingdom (UK) which reported that a teachers’ union representative publicly stated that a teacher who engages in consensual sex with a student over the age of 16 should not face prosecution. My initial reaction was of course a state of incredulous amazement and then I settled into a routine state of awe… I am still in awe that someone representing a respected union of TEACHERS believes that it is “ok” to have what is termed as “consensual sex” with a student over the age of 16.

Is this conduct becoming of a person in the position of a teacher, a mentor, a leader, an adult? Professional conduct in this situation is completely absent. Issue number one isn’t even the age. It’s the idea that a teacher can have sex without retribution with a student. How insane is that? There are certain occupations where professionalism and conduct are paramount, teaching is one of them. This representative has effectively trampled upon the decency of the teaching occupation which he is representing.

The man himself states, “Teachers who have sex with pupils over the age of consent are guilty of a mere “error in professional judgment,” and should not be placed on the sex offenders register.” The decision is a “mere” error in professional judgment? Let’s say what it truly is. It is a catastrophic error in judgment which should in fact carry criminal consequences for the offender. Yes, I said offender and not consensual party. When there is a teacher/student relationship or supervisor/employee relationship, there is a level of control which can impact the situation. The existence of power alters the relationship.

How can a rational and professional person truly believe engaging in intimate relations with a student is acceptable? There is a trend amongst our “free” societies pursuing free rein to do as they wish as long as it “doesn’t hurt anyone.” Legalize drugs, it saves prison space, makes us money on taxation, and make us feel good. Legalize prostitution, it’s a free market, and also makes us money on additional revenue taxation. Legalize “insert x here” as long as it doesn’t appear to harm anyone and/or creates more tax revenue. It doesn’t matter if it’s morally, ethically, or professionally wrong. If it makes us feel good, then it must be ok.

We are careening toward extinction of rational behavior as our world continues to fall into an emotional and leadership vacuum. If all we care about is “feeling good,” we will be living in chaos. Rules, laws, and ideas of professional conduct are not here to make things “un-fun,” they are here because to live a rational and ethical life, there needs to be certain moral and ethical codes. We can assume everyone is rational, but this is not a perfect world. Rational individuals do not murder each other, steal from one another, or engage in intimate relationships with their students.

Professional conduct and rational behavior go hand in hand. Someone who construes having sex with students is both irrational and absolutely unprofessional. For a union representative to publicly state this position is reprehensible. He should be removed and reprimanded immediately.

Citation: http://www.foxnews.com/

What kind of penalty does the new bill give to the newly found text message criminals? First brush with the law and you’re facing a monstrous $20 fine. Those dastardly repeat offenders will face an insurmountable $50 fine per infraction. Showing the leniency of the state, knowing that current citizens cannot simply go “cold turkey” from text messaging while driving, the law thankfully doesn’t go into effect until Jan 1, 2009. Whew, at least they have three months to straighten out their habitual need to text!

As you can see, I’m writing with a bit (well, maybe more) of sarcasm, maybe even being a little whimsical. No, it’s not that I think texting should be ok while driving. It’s that I think the fines are a little absurd… absurd in the fact that they are much too low. How can you expect people to be deterred from doing something harmful if the penalty doesn’t hurt? $20 or even $50 is nothing in the scheme of things. Also, how are the police planning on enforcing such a law? With speeding and erratic driving, it’s pretty simple to make a case against the driver. However, how can you specifically charge a driver with texting while motoring?

Are the police going to be equipped with real time text messaging logs proving the driver broke the law? We can all come up with countless excuses when Mr. Policeman shows up at our window. “I wasn’t texting, I was checking caller id.” “I wasn’t reading a text message. I was checking my call log.” The excuses will be more extravagant of course, but you get the idea.

Number one, the penalties are too low. Number two, the law isn’t enforceable in any legitimate way. This law is a simple feel good law. We all like to scream and yell at the “stupid” driver not paying attention and we would like to see them off the road or at least penalized for not paying attention, but seriously, this is not the way to do it.

Thinking off the cuff here, let’s try and focus on a technology that can remove the “need” to text message in the first place. How about coming up with some sort of technology that allows you to mount your cell phone or connect it to your car in a manner similar to how you attach your iPod these days. Car makers have invented On Star type technologies that could be utilized for personal cell phones. Jump in your car, mount your phone and then you are hands free and also text free. We have GPS devices littering our dashboards, interact them with the text messaging features. Incoming text message scrolls across the GPS like device in ticker form. To respond back, simply call back the user via the “hands free” technology.

This particular idea took me about, 2 minutes to think of and type? I’m sure there is some merit to it and it’s even a possibility that could become reality. Rather than focusing on passing feel good laws that cannot be enforced, we need to actually fix the problem and create something that will replace the problem. Instant communication is here to stay… we spent years asking for it. Now trying to penalize people for it and trying to remove it is akin to trying to put raging waters back behind the dam. It’s not going to happen.

We all want our highways to be safer than they are and admittedly, text messaging drivers have made them less safe. However, we must find a better way to stop it than slapping $20 or $50 fines from here to eternity on imprudent drivers only found guilty by sight. Speeders make the highways unsafe also, how many of them do you see pulled over? You get the idea. Nothing is going to change unless we make things safer by altering the technology, not removing it.

I ran across a report detailing exactly what I am referring to above. A young man recently was in a car accident, killing 2 people. Prior to the accident, he was stopped for suspected drunk driving. However, as the officer approached his vehicle, he sped off, ran a red light at an intersection and hit a vehicle which sent him airborne. His vehicle proceeded to land on top of another, crushing the passengers inside. The passengers were a newlywed couple (married for about a month), on their way home from a movie date when their life was ended. The first vehicle included 5 students with 2 receiving non-life threatening injuries. As it usually happens, the suspected drunk driver was not killed and is currently hospitalized. His passenger, needing to be cut out from the vehicle, is also hospitalized.

Sad story, but in reality, this was a needless accident that occurred because our justice system has become too “fair.” The back story on our driver includes the following: He has been arrested 4 times previously for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), involved in 2 police chases, and has 4 outstanding drug and DWI warrants. Should this man have been allowed to be free? The last DWI charge he faced only required a $500 fine to be paid before he could be released. Is that fair? No, these charges are not something that he accrued over his extended lifetime… he is only 22 years old. This man should not have been allowed to drive let alone be out of jail.

How many of these needless accidents occur throughout the year? Not only drunken driving accidents, but any accidents that could have been prevented if our justice system would be more adamant about putting criminals behind bars rather than freeing them in an attempt to be more “fair.” I believe the suspect in this case was well beyond being treated fair. His repeated criminal action was more than enough to require his removal of freedom. Now, there are 2 deaths involved and at least 3 other injured people because of his actions.

We read stories like this all the time. Accidents happen, but some accidents can be prevented. This was a preventable accident. Are we too worried about how many people we have in prison? Are we worried about criminals being treated unfairly when they have repeatedly violated our laws? Who is standing up for the victims? Why aren’t we worried about the rights and lives of the victims or even future accidental victims? Each time we see or read a story such as this, we always think “That’s horrible… I’m glad it wasn’t me or my family.” This time… If we continue to allow our criminals to walk away time and again, eventually, your family could be reading a story about an accident involving you… or even worse, children receiving a phone call informing them of their parent’s death.

Citation: http://www.foxnews.com/

Canadian police were able to apprehend the criminal and he and his victim have both been identified. The criminal had zero criminal history and the people who knew him could not provide any evidence as to his being capable of committing such a crime. The victim was also stated to be an upstanding young man with no issues that would cause such an action against him. But, here we are, an insane criminal act by a seemingly “good” citizen against a “good” and innocent young man. How does this happen? What stopped working inside the “Lecterish” criminal’s mind? Was there something that set him off in the minutes before re-boarding the bus? Did the victim do anything to instigate or antagonize the criminal? Hopefully, the Canadian justice system will eventually find a conclusion to this crime and make sure the criminal is kept safely away from society.

This is where we begin to discuss murder and punishment. It’s a clear cut case of murder, no question. However, as with most countries, there is a distinction between first and second degree murder. First is primarily reserved for criminals who plan out and carry through with the murder of their victim. Second degree catches the rest, murders without premeditation. There are various other systems, but for the most part, that’s the general version of determining murder charges. Canada has charged the man in this crime with second degree murder. Based on their initial evidence review, they do not have enough for a first degree charge. While I agree, the man may not have “planned” the execution of his seat-mate, but should that matter in this circumstance? In the end, in my mind, murder is murder, planned or not. If what you do because of your criminal action results in the death of someone, you pay the maximum penalty for murder. There is no need to determine if there is premeditation or not. The victim has been murdered either way.

Under Canadian law, first and second degree murder charges carry maximum penalties of 25 years in prison. Criminals convicted of first degree murder receive a 25 year sentence with no parole (unless rarely receiving a parole only allowed after serving 15 years). Criminals convicted of second degree murder receive 25 years with the possibility of parole after 10 years. Oh, but wait, if you have committed murder in the past, you must serve 25 years, no parole for you. 25 years for murder? Life expectancy is near 80 these days, 25 years for the worst crime you can commit as a human just doesn’t seem to be enough. The criminal in this case is 40 years old, if he is convicted of second degree murder, he must serve at least 10 years, which puts him at 50. If the Canadian parole board at that time believes he has been “rehabilitated,” they will release this man onto the public streets. We can only hope the Canadian justice system has a backdoor which keeps this man from ever seeing the public light of day again.

Now that we have talked about Canada, how does the United States murder and punishment laws compare? Similar in the nature of first and second degree murder distinction, the United States allows Capital Punishment at each state’s discretion. First degree murder, you face potential death and if not death, potential life in prison without parole, ever. Second degree murder, you face life in prison with the possibility of parole. United States law is quite a bit stricter in the area of murder when compared to Canada, by far. But, even though on paper it sounds like we are tougher, are we?

Statistics show that murderers who have been convicted in the United States on average, serve 15-20 years before paroled (criminals usually serve half of sentenced time before parole on average according to the latest information). Even though our laws are tough at first glance, in practice, our criminals are in similar waters as their Canadian counterparts. How can this be? Why do we have laws on our books which state that a criminal must serve a life sentence for his crime only to allow him to roam free in half the time? Yes, I’ve heard all the cries about prison overcrowding and prisoners being rehabilitated, yadda, yadda, yadda. I believe that if you commit the crime, you must serve your penalty. Consequences for your actions, there is nothing remotely fairer than that. Criminals have long since known they can “beat” the system. In the United States, the death penalty is the main deterrent against committing murder, but our lawyers and our highly paid CSI wannabe defenders have almost negated the ability to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a premeditated, first degree murder took place. They can create doubt out of thin air and “save” their client from the chair, chamber, or injection.

Murder should be treated as the most heinous crime that can be committed. As such, it should carry with it the most unbending sentences. Murder has been watered down to a simple logic issue. What can you prove? Hardly anything these days it seems. Prosecutors continually take the easy way out, looking for closure and some semblance of retribution against those who murder innocents. But even then, are we doing any good? The system Canada and the United States are utilizing remind me of a couple who are unwilling to talk through issues. There will be an issue, but they can’t confront one another about it, so they choose to “deal with it” by placing it in a closet within their mind and heart. Eventually, the issue cannot be withheld forever and will burst forth as some sort of volcanic eruption of emotion and hostility. This is how we deal with murderers. We put them away for a while so we can deal with reality and eventually, we try and forget what happened in the first place. But, when the criminal is released back upon society, a potential eruption stands to take place as we are once again confronted by the same issue we tried to hide from in the first place.

Deal with the issue today and we won’t have to deal with the issue later. Put away our murderers for good and we won’t ever have to worry about them infecting the minds of others or harming more innocent bystanders. If you’re capable of murder, guess what, I don’t want you near me, “rehabilitated” or not. Convicted of murder, guess what, you should be living your life in prison because you ENDED someone’s life and that means you threw every right you had to freedom away. Our laws are too easy. Charging this man with second degree murder and thus opening the possibility that he may only serve 10 years? That’s as insane as the crime he has committed.

Citation: http://www.cnn.com/