Opinion
The Battalion
Thursday, Oct. 13, 1988
Tougher penalties only way
to soften criminal behavior
Not long ago, a mayor of an Arizona
town made a rather controversial
statement concerning punishment for
drug users. The mayor proposed that
people who get convicted of the pos-
ession or use of drugs be executed. Pe
riod.
Although the mayor’s idea may be a
bit extreme, he’s on the right track. As a
nation we need to start imposing
harsher penalties on those who break
the law. In fact, our entire concept of
what constitutes appropriate punish
ment needs to undergo some radical
changes if we are to bring crime under
control.
This increase in punishment need not
be complicated — it can be quite simple.
In fact, there are a number of easy, non-
costly steps that can be taken.
Actually, there are a number of ways
to significantly decrease the amount of
crime in this country —emphasizing
morals and good conduct in schools, in
creasing the role of law enforcement
and providing more funding for reha
bilitation of criminals. But perhaps the
simplest and most cost effective method
of reducing crime is to increase the pe
nalties for breaking the law.
When a person breaks a law, he must
be punished in such a way that discour
ages him from ever breaking the law
again. This punishment could take a
number of forms — anything from a
fine to an execution. If these penalties
are severe enough, crime will be drasti
cally curtailed.
Most people — and most criminals,
for that matter — weigh the costs and
benefits of performing a particular ac
tion before they proceed further. If the
expected benefits of committing an act
outweigh the perceived costs, the indi
vidual will probably carry out that act.
And that is the fundamental problem
with our criminal justice system as it is
today. The minor penalties that our
government imposes upon the few
criminals who get convicted are simply
not enough of a deterrent to prevent
crime. For example, when criminals are
weighing the costs and benefits involved
in robbing a bank, the decision they
have to make is often not a difficult one.
The benefits, if the criminals are suc
cessful, include enough money to live
comfortably for the rest of their lives.
The costs, if they are arrested and con
victed, consist of a few years in prison
that has practically all the comforts of
home.
The first thing that could be done is
to abolish parole. For those who are un
familiar with parole, the process goes
something like this: After convicted
criminals have served part of their
prison term (if they have to serve one),
they go before a parole board. This
board, which usually consists of people
with little or no experience in criminal
justice, determines which criminals will
be freed and which will continue to
serve their sentences. In effect, these
laymen have the real power to deter
mine a convicted criminal’s sentence.
The person who originally determined
the length of this sentence — the judge
— does not.
Abolishing parole would definitely
act as a deterrent to criminal activity.
When many career criminals realize that
their chances of getting out of prison on
parole no longer exist, they may re-eval
uate their choice of crime as a way of
life.
Advocates of parole will put forward
the argument that parole is necessary to
prevent prison overcrowding. Abolish
parole, they will say, and there will soon
be no more room in prisons. While the
abolition of parole would temporarily
increase the number of prisoners, in the
long run (along with additional mea
sures) it will decrease crime and even
tually even lessen prison crowding.
Another thing that could be done is
to make prison conditions worse for re
peat offenders — that’s right, worse. Af
ter all, prisons are not supposed to be
fun. Prisoners are not entitled to tele
vision, books, or any other luxuries.
What they are entitled to is food, water
and a place to sleep.
laws as they see fit. It should not be dif
ficult to imagine how terrible such a
place would be —a walled-in area full of
murderers, drug pushers and bank rob
bers who are free to do anything they
wish except escape. If criminals were
faced with being put in such a facility
with no chance of parole, many of them
might decide to change vocations.
First-time offenders would not be
placed in such facilities, but in corrective
institutions where rehabilitation would
be stressed. It would be made quite clear
to these criminals, however, that if they
were to be convicted of another major
crime at any time in the future, they
would be placed in the punitive facility
for the length of their sentence.
An increase in the use of capital pun
ishment would also bring about a de
crease in crime. Criminals who have al
ready been convicted of two major
offenses (and thus have served their
time in the punitive facility and have
been released) could be manditorily ex
ecuted upon conviction for a third se
rious offense. This would serve the dual
purpose of eradicating career criminals
who have no hope of being rehabili
tated, and deterring other law breakers
from committing major crimes.
If the simple steps that have been out
lined above were to be followed by our
government, crime in this country
would decrease substantially. Criminals
would face a completely different set of
circumstances than they do now when
weighing the pros and cons of commit
ting a major crime.
They would have to consider that, if
convicted and sentenced, they would
not be paroled — their entire sentence
would have to be served. Criminals who
have already been convicted of a major
crime would face a punitive facility
Filled with murderers and thieves who
are free to roam at will. And criminals
who have been convicted of two such
crimes would face a mandatory execu
tion if they committed a third major of
fense.
From this example alone, it is clear
that we have to be tougher on criminals.
If the punishment for crime goes up, so
will the expected costs of breaking the
law. If these costs increase to a high
enough point, they will outweigh the
beneFits of committing crime, and crimi
nal activity will drastically decline.
Special prisons could be created for
repeat offenders of major crimes (rape,
murder, armed robbery, etc.) These
prisons could be nothing more than
walled areas into which food and water
is dropped on a regular basis. The pris
oners would be free to create their own
society and laws, and to enforce these
The only question that remains is why
we don’t start cracking down on crimi
nals. The answer that presents itself is
that this country’s leaders are not put
ting enough emphasis on reducing
crime. But we can’t put all of the blame
on our elected ofFicials. Ultimately, the
responsibility is ours. If we want to do
something to bring crime under control
we can let our voices be heard.
Mail Call
Women will be force in Church
EDITOR:
Bravo! I was very pleased to read Anthony Wilson’s article in the Oct. 1
on women in the priesthood.
The Vatican’s refusal to permit the ordination of women in the Catholic
Church is truly sexist. If the pope continues to deny women in thechurchtltis
privilege, he is eventually going to threaten the membership in the Catholic
Church in the United States. After all, the United States has traditionallyhe®
in extending rights to women, as compared to the rest of the world.
As far as I can see, we will continue to do so in the near future. Inthisdaii
age, where women are more and more becoming a force to reckon with in tit
business world, as well as in the church, the American women are notgoingt:
around and wait for the pope to approve of their ordination. If they feelthatj
have the gift of the priesthood, they will Find a way to express that gift;event]
means leaving the Catholic Church.
1 will say, however, that even when a church ordains women, thecessatiot
sexism does not necessarily follow.
My mother is a priest in the Anglican church. She will still, at times,runiii
situations in which she is not regarded as equal in abilities to the malepriesiif
church. This is unfortunate.
However, just as women have slowly worked their way in totheworkfort
are women slowly working their way into the upper level offices within the
hierarchy of the Anglican church. It simply is that First big step which needs
taken.
Elizabeth Merriam ’91
That Morton — what a cutup!
EDITOR:
In regard to Dean Sueltenfuss’ Oct. 6 column concerning “The Morton
Downey Jr. Show,” granted the show is not for everyone. It is notforthoses
deep intellectual stimulation, but for those who desire unique entertainmeGi
deviation from the mindless drivel that is network television.
Maybe it’s Morton’s genuine conservative values that Dean dislikes?Inw
enjoy the show for Morton’s ability to get people to say what they reallythini
not what they think they should say. And besides, it’s HILARIOUS!
Jason Druebert ’92
Texan insulted by stereotype
EDITOR:
1 found Suna Purser’s Oct. 1 1 column highly insulting.
Please, Suna, give us “good ole boys” and girls a little credit. Bytheway
depicted a “typical” Texan’s speech, you’d think we were all illiterate.
And by the way, it’s articles such as yours that keep the stereotype of Te:
strong in other states.
Lately, however, it’s been awfully, aw
fully quiet.
Dean Sueltenfuss is a junior journa
lism major and columnist for The Bat
talion.
Would you believe that a person can be born in Texas and growuptobe
perfectly normal, open-minded, intelligent, literate individual? No,
since you seem to believe so strongly in the power of hypocrisy.
After all, you demonstrated for us exactly what you blamed Texansofiii
You bad-mouthed us for our bias, while doing the same thing yourself.
Did you REALLY think that native Texans would read your article, sudli
see the light, and say, “YEAH! SHE’S EXACTLY RIGHT!”?
Give me a break. Ba tha way, therr arrr 49 uther states an' 120 utherkui
too chooz frum!
Kellie R.Garrett ’92
Letters to the editor should not exceed BOO words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to tUtlM,
and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author's intent. Each letter must be signed and mti
classification, address and telephone number of the writer.
Baby years the beginning of the end of life as you know
The conversation started out so inno
cently.
A friend and I were talking about the
impending arrival of his sister’s baby.
He was talking about the things he
would do with his nephew-to-come
(He’s already decided it’s going to be a
boy). Then he said the dreaded phrase.
T want babies.”
You have to quit wearing trendy
clothes and shop exclusively by catalog
(or buy from one of those shopper
channels on TV). You can only wear
clothes in combinations of brown, black
or blue (and only in polyester or any
other stretch fabric that looks tacky).
Your hair has to be cut in one of the
preferred mother-father styles.
So another soul was lost to baby-days
— he finally hit that fateful age when “I
want babes" changes to “I want babies."
That age when The Waltons becomes
actual entertainment and you identify
more with Ward and June than with
Wally and the Beave.
We’re talking about babies — those
little things that cry, feel squishy, cry,
spit up, cry, wet themselves and cry.
Don’t get me wrong — I would not
mind having children one day. But right
now I still have things to live for.
And what about cars? Cars have to
match your clothes — brown, black or
blue. Station wagons are the preferred
parental mode of transportation. They
have to have vinyl seats for easy clean up
when the little critters make a mess.
That means that after you have kids,
you’re doomed to have car seats that
burn the back of your legs for the rest of
your life.
Becky
Weisenfels
Managing Editor
some cartoon character or doesn’t come
with a plastic prize, then they don’t want
it (then again, that doesn’t sound too
bad).
Want to watch TV? You get a choice
— Sesame Street, Mr. Roger’s Neigh
borhood or the Electric Company. After
one week of watching dancing numbers
and a big yellow bird that talks, you’ll
start losing it.
You have to relearn everythin
scout camp that you thoughtyw 1
never need because now you're
MOTHER (or FATHER).Thisi
how to put up a tent, howtocoo!
stew and how to go to the bath
the woods.
When you have kids, you have to take
vacations like the Brady Bunch. Ever
notice how the Brady Bunch always
went on educational vacations? That’s
what you have to do. And no, you can
not pass Fort Lauderdale off as educa
tional (oh, honey, the kids can learn how
to do tequila shots).
You can try to get plush car seats —
my mom did. And I got bubble gum all
over the back of them (dark blue seats
with white blobs).
Instead, your family visits national
forests (spend the day observing pine
needles) or goes camping (portable pot
ties and mix-‘n’-eat food).
Music? After kids, something hap
pens to your music sensibilities. Maybe it
comes from listening to one-too-many
replays of ‘Twinkle, Twinkle, Little
Star,’ but you begin to think of Law
rence Welk as high entertainment.
Wayne Newton becomes the guru of
tunetown. And Liberace -let’s talk
ecstasy for the of eardrums.
You have to chauffer kids loll 1
ies and to the swimmingpoolb)
to watch “Snoopy Come Home *
20,000 times. Tonka toys will 1®
yard and Lincoln Logs will coif
carpet.
Marriage is one thing, but after you
have children, things really change.
And let’s talk about vacations. Like to
party? Like to have fun? Forget it.
And after you have kids, you can’t eat
normal food. If it isn’t advertised by
You start to enjoy neighborhood Fish
fries and guys named Ed who sell insur
ance. You call the mailman by name and
buy clishtowels for fun. You watch cook
ing shows and actually write down the
recipes (a true sign of deterioration).
But despite knowing that
a pain in the patoot, the day ^
when we’ll need the tax brfii
there goes the neighborhood
Becky Weisenfels is a senior,
lism major, managing editor^
umnist for The Battalion.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Lydia Berzsenyi, Editor
Becky Weisenfels, Managing Editor
Anthony Wilson, Opinion Page Editor
Richard Williams, City Editor
D A Jensen,
Denise Thompson, News Editors
Hal Hammons, Sports Editor
Jay Janner, Art Director
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a community service to Texas A&M and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
editorial board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, fac
ulty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for students in reporting, editing and photography
classes within the Department of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday
during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday
and examination periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62
per school year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising
rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX
77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col-
We Station TV 77K43-41 1 1
BLOOM COUNTY
oc/igx, cme /sup
70%, 7m PPtfOtJO
APB SPfLUNG OVZR
mPHON&T, MLP
mN AR6 POPPING
BANKS JU5T 70
AFF0PP Y0UK
C0NTK0LUPP
SUB STANCE.