Repeat offenders ... is it because they got away too often?
By vanny
@vandana7 (101585)
India
February 2, 2025 2:35am CST
A few days ago, I was sitting in the hall and watching one of the most boring television serials. Simply because my father watches it, and I just happened to be sitting by his side.
The actor did not know how to act, and does not look good either. She told a young girl, look if you do not fight the rape case, that guy is going to do it to another person.
Fast forward, Pony's post of yesterday....or maybe the day before.
He asked something like being civil to a person who has cheated you. Mostly.
So would you think rape is a serious crime and the only way you can stop the perpetrator from becoming a repeat offender is by reporting it.
And the same does not apply to any cheat or swindler....
I think swindlers often cause serious financial problems. Lehman brothers tanked, like Titanic and many lost homes. All that anxiety must have definitely taken a toll on their health. So if they could live for say 80 years, they left the world when they were 60. To me, that is a type of murder.
And the financial advisors during the period were all mass murderers...merely because there is no dead body, and there is no blood does not mean the pain was not there, and we cannot decide ...how much pain deserves the offender to be punished and how much needs to be ignored.
Just some thoughts on this subject. Please share yours.
5 people like this
4 responses
@porwest (98546)
• United States
2 Feb
In the U.S. our biggest problem stems from soft on crime, liberal judges and prosecutors. They'd rather reduce charges, or offer shorter sentences, and so, criminals wind up back in the general public too soon and do more crimes. It becomes a vicious cycle.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (101585)
• India
5 Feb
@porwest Oh oh...I was a tad harsh with putting to sleep language. LOL
I wouldn't put even a pet to sleep unless it was rabied.
But I am for stiff financial punishments for those committing serious crimes. Default, if the person is proved guilty of some types of crimes, like rapes, large scale swindling leading to heavy financial losses, acid attacks, etc., then all the assets to be taken. Assets of parents too must be taken....parents and siblings if they hold any post of power anywhere, would lose those posts. Yeah...if repercussions are serious, people would think twice.
1 person likes this
@ptrikha_2 (47636)
• India
2 Feb
For those who cause such type of Financial misery and often get away due to their political clout, family linkages or loopholes in legal system, there should be the punishment of being unpaid worker in different homes affected by their failures or bungling.
Say if 200 workers were affected by their owner who cheated or lost money due to some sort of bad decision, the owner should work as unpaid worker in a their home one by one. May be 3 days in 1 home.
Or at least work in 2 homes at least symbolically for 1 month.
Once others see such punishment and social humiliation, that could act as a bigger deterrent than perhaps a term in prison.
As for other measures, I think more laws can be put up but due to the level of corruption & nepotism in India, implementation could always be an issue.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (101585)
• India
2 Feb
Actually, it should be obligatory on the Banker to scrutinize the profile of the entrepreneur. Does he have enough experience? What is his academic record. This matters because it shows whether the person is hard working or not. Even when records are submitted, the records should be verified. The second loan should be given only when the performance on the first has been satisfactory and that too it should not be more than 5 times....the first loan. The whole system is a mess, whichever direction you look at. What sorta independence did we get.
The remedy you suggest is good, but there still is the big question. The workers still don't get an easy life.
Any punishment should give relief to the victim, isn't it?
1 person likes this
@ptrikha_2 (47636)
• India
2 Feb
@vandana7
I agree that the second loan should be given only based on the performance of the first loan, just as in the case of common citizens.
1 person likes this
