I've been thinking about accountability lately. We all know there's a difference between right and wrong. Right to be nice to people, wrong to step on someone's toes intentionally. Right to be patient with students, wrong to be testy. Sometimes, though, people do things that are really
wrong--wrong as in breaking the law wrong. Sometimes the people who do particularly awful things don't end up going to jail because they leave the country or create a false identity.
Sometimes these people manage to elude the consequences of their crimes for decades. Let's say that during those decades these people manage to live perfectly upstanding lives. Maybe they volunteer for charities. Maybe they are gainfully employed. Maybe they are uniquely talented in some way. But many years ago, they committed some criminal act for which they were not punished.
The question is this: If someone commits a crime--one for which they are found guilty in a court of law--but they flee instead of doing their time and are caught decades later, should they still be held accountable for their earlier crime? Or should the fact that they were "good citizens" cancel out their earlier crime?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crobj/3367993034/
I would probably sentence them to half the time in jail that they were supposed to be or if the sentence were for life, I would sentence them to the appropriate amount considering that they were not committing a life-sentencing crime. Other than this, I do not know what I would do as this is an eminent ethical dilemma. :]
ReplyDeleteI think they should still be blamed and go to jail. Then after they get out of jail people can treat them nice now that they are a good citizen.
ReplyDelete-Delilah
Even though they tried to turn into a "good citizen", they should still serve their time in jail because they still committed that crime in the past. Maybe if they have changed into a "good citizen", maybe they should just give him a fraction of his jail sentence and put the rest of.
ReplyDeleteI actually read a story where a woman was falsely accused as a crack dealer, when she was caught selling it once. She had served three months out of her sentence when she jumped the fence and escaped. After that, she changed her name, married, and raised children until cops tracked her down. The verdict: She served three more months in jail and some probation time (I don't remember how much) for lying to authorities about her name and escaping from jail. The crack incident was discarded. The police said that she led the life they hoped all convicts would lead after they served their sentence. Of course, she had to commit a crime to lead that crime-free life.
ReplyDeleteI heard a story on the news about a fire that had happened in 2001, and a family was in the house where it was. Everybody died except the dad, who was accused of committing the fire. He was sentenced to execution, which happened. Later, (2009) they found that he didn't start the fire and he was innocent. Another person had comitted it, and that person was on the run. I wonder if he will be found and charged after maybe 10 or more years, I don't know. The story intrigued me, and got me thinking.
ReplyDeleteI would probably still give them the time in jail, because they still committed a crime. I mean, if someone murdered your best friend, even if they had been a "good person" before, wouldn't you want them arrested?
ReplyDeleteI would put them in jail because they ran away and didn't take their responsibility for the crime they committed. I mean if they killed somebody than I would put them in jail. If they stole a video than I would put them in for half the time. Still it's bad
ReplyDeleteI don't think being a good citizen cancels out past crimes. If you get away with something just because you decide to be a "good citizen", everyone would steal and do awful things and then be "good citizens" and get away with it. If someone commits a horrible crime, it doesn't matter what kind of person you are, you should be arrested.
ReplyDelete