> I think it was Chuck Colson who said a long time ago that our punishments for violent crime were too weak and our punishments for nonviolent crime were too strong. <
It’s a bit of a tough call. A thug threatens a clerk with a pistol, and steals $100 from a convenience store. A top executive types a few things into a computer and embezzles $1,000,000 from his company.
Given that part of punishment is to deter future bad behavior, which person above deserves the longer sentence? I dunno.
I have a problem with background checks where one mistake can give you a life sentence when it comes to finding a job or other impediments to going on with your life. Violent criminals and child molestors are the ones to keep records on. After 7 to 10 years without further arrests scrub the records or give then non disclosures. Some states have Clean Slate laws and I think that’s a good thing.