.jpg)
Amber Dubois and Chesea King, both teenagers from the San Diego area, are both dead, yet as far as we know their killer(s) are still alive and will hopefully be brought to justice and punished - but what kind of punishment should Amber and Chelsea's killer(s) recieve?
There are laws in place which deal with sexual predators and murderers, yet some people believe those laws need to be changed. John Albert Gardner III who is charged with the murder of Chelsea King had a history of sexual molestation. If he is found guilty, should his punishment be more severe because this is not his first offense?
In the year 2000, John Gardner battered a 13 yr old girl who resisted his sexual advances. Some say John paid for his crime by serving jail time, even though the girl was, according to John Gardner's probabtion report: “quite probably marred ... for life.” Does that really mean he should be able to leave jail and start over with a clean slate as if he had never committed that crime?
Needless to say there are a number of moral, ethical, and social issues at stake here. Without going into all scenarios, or all possible punishments, I would like to narrow things down a bit and then take a vote.
We know that at least one person is responsible for the deaths of both Amber Dubois and Chelsea King. John Albert Gardner III may be the only one responsible. He may be innocent. There may be two or more murderers who may attack again. As a society, we need to have punishments which fit the crime, and deter violent crimes to begin with.
Right now, under our current system, some people are willing to commit the most heinous of crimes and after they are caught and punished they are willing to do it again. The fear of getting caught, or the punishment which ensues, is obviously not enough to prevent or deter their behavior. So what should the punishment be for raping and murdering someone?
In the Bible, such sins were punishable by stoning. Some offenses required an animal sacrifice. Others a payment plan. There was a justice system that worked, that detered sin, and was easy to understand. We need that today.
The punishment should fit the crime. In the case of both Amber and Chelsea, each girl lost her life. From all reports, it does not appear that these girls died a quick and painless death, quite the contrary. They suffered. So the murderer(s) must suffer as well. And for the record, locking someone up with food, clothing, television, access to lawyers, etc. is not the same as eliminating a young girl's life. Neither Amber nor Chelsea will enjoy food, watch TV, talk to friends, family, or anyone else ever again. They were brutally victimized, and robbed of everything life had to offer.
The general public should not have to pay the penalty for crimes we did not commit. We should not have to pay for the perpetrator's conviction, searching for the bodies, etc. + $20,000 to $50,000 per year to keep a killer behind bars. We should not have to live in fear of rapists and murderers back on the street. The full burden of payment and retribution should be upon those who purposefully choose to commit the crimes.
So here are your choices of punishment for the rapist-murderer(s):
1) Castration + a work program that provides a useful service and payment program to the city then to the family of the deceased for the rest of his life
2) A seizing and selling of assets to reimburse the city and family for all expenses involved + a physical punishment which inflicts considerable pain until dead
Amber Dubois' family and Chelsea King's family should have the right to decide which punishment they prefer. If they do not choose, then the decision would be made by a public vote. Here is your chance right now.
Share this article with others so they too can vote. Some people may want more choices, but this isn't Burger King - you can't always have it your way. Ask Amber or Chelsea ... oh yeah, that's right ... you can't.
photo credit: puamelia on flickr
Comments