Twisted Justice??

I really do not understand the justice systems prevailing in various countries. The whole judicial system is based on the principle that once an offender has committed a crime, he is send to jail so that when he comes out of his jail term he becomes a better person and can lead a normal life. I am not saying that the concept is right or wrong, but that’s the concept. That’s why people are sent to jail. That is one of the reasons why people are opposing the death penalty. But is the whole system hypocritical?

In the US and in most countries, finger prints, DNA etc of the convicts are stored and if at another crime seen if any trace of a former felon is found, then he/she would automatically be the prime suspect. If some crime happens and if a formal criminal is present in the neighborhood, then regardless of the evidence he/she becomes the prime suspect. In the US all sex offenders are registered. They are not supposed to live anywhere within 1000 yards of schools and other places where children can be found. When they move into a new locality all the neighbors would be notified about him. If the judicial system is do damn sure that if a sex offender comes any where close to a child, its almost certain that he would take advantage of the child, they why release the offender on the first place? To ensure that the police force doesn’t get bored! Aren’t jails and other centers constructed so that they can keep in trouble makers and make it outside world a lot safer?

If that’s the case I find two things wrong with the judicial system. First the judicial system works on the assumption that when a convict is freed, the chance of him committing another crime is very high. Hence I believe that the quantum of punishment and the severeness of punishments should increase. If you vandalize property, you would be given a hefty fine, which for most people is pocket cash. If you rob a bank, you would be send to 3-5 years in jail, which the appropriate time to plot another bank robbery. Unless a punishment acts as a strong deodorant there is no point in having the punishment. The punishment should bring a sense of fear in the minds of people. What people lose by getting caught should outweigh the benefits the person gets out of the crime by a huge margin.

The second problem I see with the judicial system is that even after a person pays his dues to the society, the tag of "criminal" still remains with the person. Like in the case of a sex offender, he has to go through a lot of formalities before he can do something. Many posts require its holders, not to have any criminal record. I can understand people preferring a person with no criminal over some one with a record, but I don’t understand the logic behind disqualifying a person because of his criminal record. That just downplays or overrides the whole purpose of achieving reforms by sending a person to jail. To say that a person is send to jail so that he can rectify his mistakes and then when he comes out he can have a new beginning and then when he comes out take away most of the person’s normal life is quite hypocritical.

I know that changing any system is next to impossible. I am not saying that the judicial system should be changed. I just do not get the whole idea of the various punishments given, the reason for giving punishments, the life of a person after his term ends. People say that after a jail term is over, the person is given a second chance to live. Life becomes very hard for them. In fact the present circumstances encourage former convicts to step into bigger crimes. I am just a confused person trying to make sense of the judicial system