Judiciary, a corrective facility, really?

I have not been a great fan of the public corrective policies that we often tend to follow. The basic concept that goes beyond my understanding is, if someone commits a crime then, first you give him a choice to prepare for his defense which is valid enough, but why would you also give him an option like he can choose to not come at a particular date for some number of times, do the criminals decide the time frame of the judgment or is it the prerogative of the judges?

Now after weeks, months and years have passed and he is found guilty, you decide to either put him in jail or ask him to pay a fine. This is where I get lost, are we actually giving the culprit an option to buy his way out of jail? If that is true then why would anyone go to jail when he has an option of not going to jail? There is more to this, we are not only giving him an option to, not pay for his sins in, psychological terms, but we are also teaching him that if he has money he would be able to, not go to jail!!. Great we just promoted the lust for money and ensured that, if we have money then we may not get harsher punishments and are free to perform sins till a certain threshold. But I guess this principle would be good by an economist’s point of view.

What is even more interesting is that if someone is found guilty of a crime and cannot get bailed he goes to a prison, whose function is to correct the incorrect, and how does it do it? By providing an even adverse environment and hoping that the culprit would not want to see this again and would chose to not commit crime, really? So what you do here, is that you take a person and put him in the presence of like minded people, who share the same point of view, now how is that corrective measures, and by providing him an adverse environment you make him more desperate to commit crime when he goes out.

You rarely choose for capital punishments, because human rights have a different view about it, Wow human rights? What do they say about the people murdered or made financially bankrupt by the culprit, why do they not fight for their rights for a change? There is more, if you have spent a lot of time in prison then it could be a valid reason for you to not get capital punishment, because the long tenure spent in prison may become equivalent to capital punishment, are you serious when you say this? So like what you are trying to say is that if you give a lion vegetarian food the lion will become a vegetarian.

What we may need is, to reduce the options that we give to the culprits, make reductions in the option of paying and getting bail, reduce the time frame privilege that you give to the individuals under judicial trial, make a nation wide registry for the corrupt that is visible to employers and those who are concerned, or try to send their relative to prison for every crime that they commit(just a joke). To be more introspective, why not start taking their rights away for

every level of crime that they have committed. The right to speak, the right to express, the right to choose a profession etc. Why should they have rights when they disregarded their duties. You can implement it in prison if not in the society.

If crime has to be committed, most probably will be committed, but we can ensure that it does not get committed by the same person again and again or others learn from a culprits mistake.