Review - Swift and Sure: Bringing Certainty and Finality to Criminal Punishment by Judge Cornelius

There is a myth about our country circulating mainly in conservative circles that we are a good, solid, can-do type of nation. We see a problem, and by-gum, we fix it. Well, our crime problem has been spiraling out of control for years, and by-gum, we haven’t done a thing to fix it.

Judge Cornelius starts his excellent book by citing the terrible crime statistics that show the United States to be the most violent, crime-ridden nation in the world. And we are, so the good Judge says, because American justice is neither swift nor sure. If justice were swift and sure, we would not have the crime rates we have.

The Judge tells us why abolishing parole, probation, and early release programs could serve as a vital deterrent to crime. He also is against concurrent sentences, the exclusionary law, and Miranda rights. His case for repealing the exclusionary rule is excellent. I wish more Americans knew just how damaging the exclusionary law is. It has no constitutional or moral basis. In fact it is completely immoral. The law punishes the victim of a crime for the alleged procedural errors of police officers. No other nation has such a ridiculous law, which is no doubt one of the major reasons why no other nation has such high crime rates as we do.

Cornelius also shows us how ridiculous the insanity plea has become. If someone was ever upset in their past, they can claim that the recollection of that past made them “temporarily insane.” And if the jury doesn’t like the victim (as in the Bobbit case), the guilty party will go free. Cornelius recommends we go back to the old English common law of insanity, which would result in a virtual elimination of the temporary insanity plea.

There is chapter after chapter of sound advice in this book. The chapter on revamping our juvenile system, for instance, is quite good. We currently live under a system where juveniles can kill with impunity, and unfortunately, they know it and are killing at growing rates.

Judge Cornelius’ positions are, in my judgment, unassailable. His is right. His advice is sound. The only weakness in the book lies in the question Judge Cornelius doesn’t ask: If he and any person with a modicum of common sense can see that the Judge’s reforms are necessary, why then can’t the reforms be implemented? The answer takes one into the religious realm where practical men do not want to go. Doesn’t there have to be some metaphysical belief that justice and truth are important in order for high-salaried bureaucrats to be inspired to change a system that is making them rich? In other words, in the absence of a Christian conscience, why should defense attorneys, who make their living getting hoodlums off the hook by catching police in procedural errors, give a particular damn about the fact that child molesters and murderers go unpunished? And likewise, why should policemen, in the absence of a Christian conscience, go after violent black criminals when to do so means loss of employment and at least five years in jail?

Respect for the law is a virtue when a nation’s laws have a Christian basis. But when the law is used to serve the Prince of Darkness, Christian men should defy it. On every issue – legalized abortion, the barbarian invasion, black crime, the state takes a position in favor of Satan and against the Europeans of the old stock.

Regimes that have instituted the law of Satan are not toppled overnight. But Christian men committed to counterrevolution have wrought wonders in the past. Our ancestors, such as William Tell and Nathan Bedford Forrest, are quite rightly revered. But shouldn’t we also seek to emulate them?

‘Away to the hills, to the caves, to the rocks— Ere I own an usurper, I’ll couch with the fox, And tremble, false Whigs, in the midst of your glee, You have not seen the last of my bonnet and me!’

I like the French way of dealing with prison sentences - no time off for good behaviour. If you behave yourself in prison, that day counts towards your sentence - if you don’t, it doesn’t. It is time to put “penitent” back into “penitentiary”.

This would force the sentencing rules out into the open, where a life sentence could mean only seven years, or other ridiculous situations where someone is sentenced to 10 or 20 years and gets out in less than half the time.

Nah, the problem is our focus. Our prisons are overcrowded, so they release murderers to put in drug dealers.

Our Justice System is designed to keep Lawyers, Judges, Police, Guards and Politicians employed. It is not about punishing criminals or preventing crime.

Though I don't argue with the premise that criminal justice could be more 'swift and sure' the fact is that in the US: 1) violent crime is generally going down, not up; and 2) the quixotic attack on the insanity plea is mere demagoging. It is rarely tried and usually not successful when it is tried. Furthermore, it is useful to note that the idea of not holding the insane responsible for their actions goes to the roots of western civilization, in ancient Rome. As a conservative I find no virtue in the precipitous abandonment of basic time-tested principles for the sake of passing expediency.

Thanks. Excellent article. I am in complete agreement with what is proposed. Not gonna happen though. In fact we’re going in the other direction with Obama, where millions of criminals will likely be let out because of their race, IMHO. I think Barry will institute some across the board pardon for people, as the Black Caucus has been pushing for years.

Judge Cornelius’ positions are, in my judgment, unassailable.

Agreed.

Skimming the summary, I also find it a bit incomplete. The final issue to resolve involves the long-repeated quote "the more corrupt the government, the more numerous the laws": much (certainly far from all) of what prompts crime is prohibitions on what people will naturally do (more or less reasonably and/or harmlessly), and will go to great lengths (even crimally) to do. To wit: if it wasn't illegal, it wouldn't really be a problem, but since it is illegal, crimes are committed to achieve it.
(Note: this is not to be confused with legalizing immorality, but the criminalization of moral or neutral acts in pursuit of criminalizing immorality.)

Far too many are in prison for paperwork violations, or for offending someone else's sensibilities. Don't make things so hard (or impossible) to do the right way, and you won't have so many people doing them the wrong way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.