Crime: The Final Solution

This was sent in by a reader. I would like to get your responses. Please use the "comment" function below. Thank you.
*************************************************************************************
Crime and Punishment


Society has long been at the mercy of violent and sometimes equally destructive non-violent predators.


I believe crime could virtually be brought to a standstill almost overnight or be so minimized that it would no longer exist as we know it today by implementing a simple solution. Our prisons could be almost emptied out. The recidivism rate would virtually disappear. There would be a powerful and compelling deterrent to other would-be criminals. While the death penalty obviously stops one criminal from ever committing another crime, people have questioned whether it is actually a deterrent to others. My solution eliminates such a debate. Punishment and justice would both be simultaneously served.


Most all crimes require two things in order to come into existence and be carried out: desire and eyesight. It has long been proven that there is little to no deterrent for desire but take away eyesight, which enables a crime to be carried out, and the ability to perpetrate the crime is reduced to almost nil. It is hard to lust after what you can’t see.


Criminals take something away from society each time they prey upon the innocent. Society has the right to take something away from the criminals. We have been so busy, in most cases, temporarily taking away “freedom” from the criminals that we have blinded ourselves to any other solution. Take away eyesight and the solution becomes not only permanent but also a very powerful deterrent.


Instead of building more prisons, giving life sentences and executing people, build homes for the blind and staff them with sighted workers. One thing is for sure, violent predators aren’t going to be traveling around “looking” for prey any more. Gang bangers aren’t going to be shooting anyone and it is rather difficult to attack someone you can’t see. Sexual predators aren’t going to be stalking anyone they can’t see. Children will have a chance to outrun and avoid these perverts and those the sexual predator can’t lust after, is not likely to become a victim. Computer hacks are not going to find stealing identities and easy job. Neighbors would no longer have a “not in my backyard” concern in living near such houses for the blind. Even some families of the criminals might be willing to house these individuals once they no longer pose the same level of threat as they did when they were sighted.


The blinded ex-criminals could also be trained and required to “work” to pay for their own care, thereby relieving society of the costly burden of caring for them.


For those who think blinding criminals is inhumane, I would suggest they consider the inhumanity perpetrated upon their victims and understand that many innocent people must deal with such handicaps as blindness all of their lives. In the criminal’s case, they deserve to be handicapped. Society deserves the chance to "level the playing field." Finally, if someone is “wrongly” convicted for a crime, they are at least still alive even though they are blind. As to being humane, what might be considered as inhumane is locking a person in a cell or keeping them in isolation? What is humane about being attacked by other inmates? What is humane about being constantly searched and having altercations with guards? What is humane about walking around with chains? What is humane about being raped in prison?


Just think about all the services society must pay for in order to deal with criminals both before, during and afterwards that could be avoided. I think this is a viable solution to the problem of crime and those choosing to commit them. Certainly, blinding a criminal is a perfect justice for the victims. It removes the victim’s fear of retribution, when the criminal is finally freed. Isn’t it time when what we are doing has not worked to finally find solutions that do?


For Jews and Christians who think blinding a person is outrageous, consider that at one time God required "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Wasn't it also Jesus who said "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Obviously, blinding someone or yourself was not considered outrageous by God. I can only surmise that many evil men (those who hurt or destroy the innocent for their own gain or pleasure) might not mind serving prison sentences or even facing the death penalty for their crimes, but I can't help wondering just how many of the same people are willing to face life blind, if that was the price to pay?