How repress the criminal by bidding for him, and how deter him through laying odds in his favor that are close to prohibitive as against society?
Where the sense in penal procedure that puts a premium, both in and out of prison, on the won’t-work criminal rounder, and blisters the itinerant who does no worse than hawk harmless wares?
Why, on the one hand, tempt cupidity, and on the other hand, tax honesty? And if, as an individual, you will have it that way, why feel peeved about it, shall an automatic be shoved against your stomach as a raucous voice bites off the command, “Cough up the coin?”
Penal law will serve the commonwealth as it should only when it shall have assured restitution in kind by the thief, up to the reasonable limit. This, as to immediate restitution of “planted” loot not only; but the sentence should further amerce to a fine of the unpaid balance, to be worked out usually in prison by the prisoner and credited to the account of the party, or parties, he robbed.
If fine in prison working days were not congruous with generous justice, then the penalty to further amerce to stated monthly payments by the prisoner on parole, to be held reasonably to his last by the State, or in lieu thereof, to be re-apprehended and required to pay by compulsion as stated.
Cases would come up, of course, whereof the exact lettering of law of the kind could not be executed; but such law could and should be framed so as to embrace the great bulk of predal offenses, and still carry sufficient of elasticity to enable committing magistrates to judge and dispose wisely for the common good.
It will be objected that such legal procedure would visit hardships on the families of offenders. Unquestionably that would be so in isolated instances, albeit the bulk of predal felons do not have families, and when they do, they are frequently a drag on them.
Again, it is, in the end, for the best interests of all concerned, that the State shall bring the last pressure to bear in order to stop the thief; particularly, marauding and foraging thieves. And again, the State could furnish work for the families of prisoners in cases of special need—and save money.
Through it all, relative distinction should be made as between the purely circumstantial and habitual thief. Not that social bon-bons should be tossed to the former; but that very close to even-handed justice should be meted out to the latter. So much distinctively should be done because by-choice predal felons always constitute the nucleus of crime and criminal intent in America.
Isolated cases will not be entirely congruous with any general rule of penal law; but consideration of the peace and security of the great mass must go before emotional procedure whatsoever which crosses the curbing of the gun-hung hound who goes a’riding to kill.