From the Detroit Free Press, Sunday December 12, 2020: “With their son already locked up and facing up to life in prison on terrorism and first-degree murder charges, James and Jennifer Crumbley were arraigned Dec. 4 on four counts each of involuntary manslaughter. The charge is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.”

My question is, why is there any of this new “terrorism” law at all? In the face of it, it’s always been a major felony to commit wanton murder so it’s worth noticing the “piling on Effect” here. “Terrorism” is now thought of as a separate phenomenon. It is not. It’s still wanton murder, there is no legitimate reason to tack on anything additional because sentencing will still serve the original purpose of jail sentencing: to confine the threatening individual until they are safe to release back into general life.

Do we need a “terrorism” charge?

My impression is that this charge of “terrorism” is a rather adolescent grab, going super moralistic and to thus promote the idea that those who pass such additional, unneeded laws are somehow wiser. I cannot help observing that we are seeing more and more of this super moralizing on the part of people who self describe as “Progressive” (and the sole haven for that political group today is the Democratic Party). Imprisonment itself is often said to be ineffective in terms of its effect on the individual criminal. But it’s proven to be effective when the wanton murderer is kept for their entire lives from having access to the outside world. The individual is of course neutralized in the ability to kill innocent people outside of prison — they grow less able to harm as they age and of course they finally die.

Of course there is always the possibility of either parole (sometimes not) or pardon. Those wanton killers who are pardoned seldom of ever harm anyone after their release. A recent example (so far) is that of John Hinkley, the man who attempted to assassinate President Reagan forty years ago. He is now 66 years old, and it’s highly unlikely he could make any such attempt at his current age. [Not withstanding that some people are in super moralistic mode and want Hinkley confined until he dies.]. In fifty years he can apply for a pardon if one is not given before then.

In other words: the object of laws and sentencing in the area of murder (criminal homicide) is and always has been: neutralizing the offender permanently.

Thus, fifteen year old Kyle Crumbley should be neutralized by the imposition of a life sentence if he’s found guilty. In fifty years he can apply for a pardon if one is not given before then.

And we can easily see that the removal of anti-terrorism laws would not harm the pubic interest one iota but would remove the egregious practice of creating super moralistic laws for the sole benefit of any political party. I for one am sick and tired of the antics of political parties.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Jack R. Noel

Everything from business executive to grocery clerk and published writer. Now retired and able to get back to my first love: writing.