Crime and Punishment go together in our society like ham and eggs, Martin and Lewis, or Bush and Cheney.  But I think it is incomplete and causes us no end of problems.  Is it right to "punish" this person with death?  Will this "punishment" help the person to reform?  We should not "punish" this person, we should get them treatment.  And on and on it goes with much heat and little light.  In fact, in the 60's we were forced to close the mental institutions because the insane inmates were being "punished" with a life sentence due to their illness.  These people were pushed out on the street to become much of today's homeless problem.

I think the problem goes back to the nature of the crimes and the nature of our behavior in response.  I see there being 4 kinds of crime.  The first is the careless crime.  Negligent manslaughter, speeding, reckless driving, child endangerment.  These people are just not being careful and cause problems from minor to horrific.  The second kind of crime is one of passion.  Assault, murder, (some) rape, and other crimes occur when anger, lust, or other strong emotions get the best of one.  A third crime is one of greed.  Most theft (other than kleptomania) fall in here as do blackmail, extortion, and most property crimes.  The fourth one is crimes caused by mental illness.  Pedophilia, some murders and rapes, and other crimes fall in here.

So, what we have is a single treatment for all four kinds of crime.  But how will "punishment" deter crimes of passion or crimes caused by mental illness?  It can help with careless crime and crimes of greed, but it has no effect on the other two.  And, is jail the best way to handle crimes of greed?

No, my choice is to look at each type of crime and reevaluate the consequences of the crime.  For careless crimes, I agree that jail time is appropriate.  If you just don't care enough to watch where you are driving, a few years in the big house will make you think the next time you get behind the wheel.

Crimes of passion really don't get an effect by incarceration, but those are not crimes that you can deter or eliminate.  As long as humans have emotions and as long as we act on them, we will always have these.  Incarceration is good, but there needs also to be restitution.  Help in care facilities, work as garbage men with the money going to the victims and other forms of restitution seem appropriate here.

Crimes of greed cry out for payment.  I would even say some form of involuntary servitude would be appropriate.  You house the person and feed them and force them to work.  They stay in jail, working on the dirty jobs selected by the state until they repay all of the people who have been robbed or hurt by their actions.  If that is 5 minutes because they stole a candy bar, fine.  If it is life because they were the CEO of Enron, that is fine too.  All assets should be confiscated and used to pay the victims.

The final type is mental illness.  Today, once the lunatic who raped the 5 year old has spent his time, goes home to re-offend.  The drunk who killed 20 people gets out to get drunk again.  No punishment will deter these people and repayment is not possible.  So what to do.  I would first ask the court to determine if a cure is likely to the condition.  I am told that pedophilia is not curable.  Regardless of therapy and other tools, once they are a pedophile, they will always be one and recidivism is huge.  If a cure is possible, I would suggest that they be incarcerated in a mental institution and forced to undergo therapy for a minimum sentence (based on the severity of the crime).  At the end of the sentence, they would not be released.  Instead, they would be evaluated by a board of psychologists similar to a parole board.  If the person cannot be reasonably identified as cured, they will be retained in treatment under the same condition as normal parole.  No release under any circumstances until they are declared by the panel as not dangerous to the public.

If the condition is considered incurable, the sentence is death.  This person does not need punishment.  No deterrence is possible, and no cure is possible.  In this case it is cruel to the person and unacceptable for society for the person to ever be free.  And it is cruel to keep the person in jail till death as well as unacceptably costly to the nation.  The person, whether he is to "blame" or not is a continuing threat to society and cannot be allowed to implement their threat.  This does not demand that the offender has committed a truly heinous crime.  It simply has to do with whether they are a continuing and incurable threat to society.  Do we really need to have people raped, murdered, and cannibalized just to justify a sentence of death.  Not in my world view, no. 

I read something today that made me laugh out loud.  That was the idea of Clinton/Gore up against Bush/Dole in the '08 elections.  Of course it would be Hillary Clinton with old Al, and Jeb Bush with Elizabeth Dole.  But still.

However, it leads me to consider how we select our candidates and how we SHOULD do it.  As I see it, we consider people as to their political purity, their beauty, their bankroll, and their public name recognition.  But we do not consider the job we are hiring them to do.  If a company were to do that in ti's hiring, it would close soon.  But with government, it cannot close.  All it can do is roll over us in it's inefficiency.

Now, in local elections, I do hear a lot about qualifications.  The auditor is an accountant, the registrar of deeds is an experienced Real Estate person and so on.  But once out of those positions and into legislative or executive positions and specially in cabinet positions, the qualifications seem not to matter.  Only the other issues. "Well, we have to nominate Bob Dole for President because it is his turn and he has a lot of favors owed.?"  But will he be a good President?  Hear the crickets chirp.

There are 6 sets of skills and appropriate positions in a government.  There are the specialist positions such as attorney general or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.  If you are not a lawyer, you have no business as an AG.  If not a military man, no business in the joint chiefs.  The second type is the idea guy.  This person may no know how to do what needs to be done but they are consistently pushing what needs to be done.  While these people are often staff, this type should naturally gravitate to the legislative side of the government.  After all, it really is not the business of the other branches to decide what needs to do.  It is their business to make it happen and to evaluate whether things are going as legislated.  The third type is the executive.  This person may not have a clue about how to craft legislation and compromise, but they must be able to get various subordinates to work together to implement the plan.  People all think their ideas are the best, and a talented executive is required to stop the government from flying apart from force of personality.  The 4th type is the judge.  Not necessarily one with the title of judge, but the person who evaluates the pros and cons of two positions and makes the correct choice based on facts in evidence.  Fifth is a form of the sixth.  This is the person who, in small groups, can convince those around him to compromise and give some to get some.  The diplomat and the used car salesman.  Finally, we have the talker and persuader.   The person who can make great speeches and inspire those around.

OK, so how do we pick our people?  The first thing to consider is the job of the position.  Presidents, governors, and mayors must be executives first and talkers and persuaders second.  There is no business larger than the US government and an incompetent manager can destroy all good that has been done.  Examples abound from Carter to Kennedy.  Both of these men had good ideas and ideals, but their governments basically ran themselves.  Bush 1&2 tried to keep it under control, but  were snowed by their own people to their own detriment.  The best in recent times was Reagan.  No one considered him brilliant on policy, but his organization worked.  The second is the talker and persuader.  Here is the Bush family downfall along with Truman and Johnson.  They know what they want and simply go about doing it, without trying to sell it or explain it.  And it crashes down around them.  Masters of this skill are again Reagan and also Clinton and Kennedy.  As much as they differed in policy, when one of them went to the public, their opponents needed to agree quickly or be destroyed.

The legislative branch has a completely different set of skills.  These people need to generate the ideas and they need to be able to work in small groups (535 people is still a small group) to get things done.  Don't ruffle that feather, don't push on this yet.  Use strategy.  Most of these people make terrible executives because they know what they want to do, but they don't have the passion or the skills to figure out what is necessary to make it work.  I would say, never make a Senator or Representative president unless they have a successful term as governor or have run a successful company.  Never make a governor a Senator or Representative unless they can give you 5 new ideas that they feel need to be implemented to make things better, and are able to convince you, over your objections, that they are right.

Now lets look at our Presidential Sweepstakes and see what we have:

• Barak Obama - Persuasive in the extreme.  However he is young and innocent and will be run by the old guard in any administration.  No executive skills demonstrated.  This man could be elected, but is likely a disastrous president.
• Hillary Clinton - The exact opposite.  She is a skilled organizer, but unlikeable and unpersuasive.  And, her executive talents are purely in organization.  With the health task force, she tried to do it all herself rather than to delegate and guide.  A truly hands on President if she becomes one.  I see her as another Carter with an out of control government and secrets and lies abounding.
• John McCain - Not particularly persuasive and no real experience in executive positions.  A natural legislator who has ideas and who makes friends across the aisle.
• Rudy Giuliani - Of the batch, the best in the skills needed.  His persuasion is too blunt for some, but he has demonstrated that he can get a government to work well.    This is my "most electable" candidate at this time.
• Tom Vilsack - Governor of Iowa was not specially competent, but at least ran it well enough that he is not poisonous.  Could be a surprise dark horse if he is a competent communicator.
• Mike Gravel - Alaskan Senator has not a chance in the universe.  No experience, not a spellbinding speaker.  A non event.
• Evan Bayh - Former Senator, former (successful) governor of Indiana.  He is attractive, young, and has lots of cash.  This is my pick for the Democratic nominee.
• Bill Richards - Former Senator, current governor.  Moderately successful as governor.  Not as attractive or wealthy as Bayh.  My pick for VP to Bayh.  This should bring in Hispanic voters and the SouthWest.
• John Edwards - Pretty and well known, but likely a disaster as President.  A lawyer and a politician only.  Tainted with the last campaign's loss.
• John Cox - Incompetent campaigner.  No chance.
• Michael Smith - A joke candidate
• Sam Brownback - A teacher and a Senator.  No executive experience.  Pretty and well spoken.  Should stay in the Senate.
• Duncan Hunter - A politician forever.  Disaster if he ever gets in to an executive role.  Pretty and well off financially.
• George Allen - Unlikely with his Senate loss.  Will be considered "damaged goods".
• Jim Gilmore -  Not pretty enough or likeable enough to win the office.  Likely would have been competent.
• Newt Gingrich - No, please.  I love the guy, but he is an idea guy.  Put him back in the legislative branch or have him lobby for his causes.  Would be bad as Carter trying to run the whole thing.
• Chuck Hagel - Fair to poor executive.  After discussion with people who worked for him, he seems to be a flag in the wind that will blow where ever his strong subordinates push him.
• Mike Huckabee - Likeable, electable, but not as well known as some.  My dark horse candidate for VP.
• Mitt Romney - Elected as a Republican in a Democrat state.  Likeable, competent.  My pick for President though likely to be made VP on a ticket with Giuliani.

So, there is my slate.   It is Evan Byah and Bill Richards for the Democrats versus Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (or Huckabee) for the Republicans.