Today a man was put to death for the murder of a prison guard. This is only the third execution in
South Dakota in the last 65 years; one 65 years ago, one five years ago,
and today. South Dakota is one of
many states in America that holds a penalty of death for certain crimes. In the United States most crime punishments
are set at a federal level. The
federal level of punishment is the base punishment level for the states. The individual states can then decide to
make the punishment more severe. The states cannot make the punishment less
severe than the federal government level.
This has both positive and negative implications for those committing
the crimes. The punishment of
death is a perfect example. For
example, Minnesota does not have the death penalty for any crimes. If the murder of the prison guard occurred
in Minnesota the murder could not be sentenced to death. Another example would be the legalize
use of marijuana, even for only medically necessary, in California. In this case California’s law is less
stringent than the federal governments.
So, while California will not prosecute the users the federal government
could still go in and shut down the growers, and prosecute both the growers and
users.
Coming back to states setting penalties more severe than
the federal government, the fact that states can set penalty levels different
from each other may cause great concern for the law-abiding citizen of many
states. I may be hard to fathom
murders would be more active in states without the death penalty, and I would
concede there is not a lot of credibility in that argument. Even if that is the case it may be very
likely that drug dealers and traffickers will be more active in state with less
severe penalty. In accepting this
argument it is also important to understand that the act still needs to result
in a crime. Sticking with drug
crimes, if drug use is legalized in a state, the price will go down, and the
drug dealers will move on. Where
drugs are still illegal the price will stay high, and it will be more
advantages for the drug dealers to pursue their trade in states with lower
penalties.
Even though a state may make the punishment more severe
than the federal set punishment, a federal punishment may be added to the state
punishment. For example, if you
commit a felony in a state the punishment may be different in Minnesota than it
is South Dakota, but the offender will have the federal punishment of no longer
being allowed to have a firearm (own, carry, or possession) added to the
punishment.
I have received an Associate Degree in Law Enforcement;
in so doing I became very familiar with the laws and penalties associated with
them in Minnesota. An area
where Minnesota and South Dakota have the same penalty is convicts’ voting
rights. In both of these states,
convicts can earn the right to vote back after they have served their term of
incarceration, and completed both parole and probation terms. Differences also exist between
the states in what is a crime and what is not, not just the penalty when a
crime is committed. A current
example, and a hot button issue, is texting while driving. It is illegal to text and drive
anywhere in Minnesota. In South
Dakota it is illegal to text in drive in Sioux Falls, but not in anywhere else
in the state.
What is a crime and what is not? What is the penalty? Is it less severe in this state or
that? Should there be more effort
to align the crimes and penalties?
France is a country where no matter where you are in the country a crime
is a crime and the penalty is the penalty. There may be an argument to made for this type of
uniformity; however, that would not be possible in the United States, because
the United States constitution reserves to the states certain unalienable
rights. Among which is the right
to establish punishment levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment