In the wake of yet another random killing last week, I am finding myself forced to once again ask the same question I have been asking for a while now:

If there is no real incentive not to commit a crime, what keeps people from committing crimes?

It sounds odd to many people, I’m sure, but think about it. What is the penalty in Minnesota for committing the most heinous of crimes? When an individual turns on the tv, what are they being told will be their punishment for a random and senseless murder?

Just one month ago the Minnesota justice system told these people loud and clear that the punishment for ultra violence is minimal at best.

Billy Rae Deshawn Johnson, 18, shot 25-year old Michael Zebuhr in the head after robbing him and his family on the street. Michael was killed in front of his family after they left a restaurant where they had just enjoyed a meal. It was a brutal, senseless killing of a random individual. Billy Rae was convicted of the murder, but plea bargained a guilty plea in return for a 2nd degree murder charge and a 30 year sentence. With Minnesota’s 2/3 time served and 1/3 on paper, if Billy Rae behaves in prison, he will be out on the street in 20 years. In all likelihood, he will be out before he is 40 years old.

Jermaine Mack-Lynch, 21, shot 20-year old Toua Xiong in the back with a .357 Magnum after Xiong tried to get away from him. Xiong was a Pizza Hut delivery driver who had just made a delivery to a home in Minneapolis. He was approached and harassed by Mack-Lynch while returning to his car. Xiong tried to break away and run to his car when he was shot in the back and killed for the $40 he had just received for the pizzas. Mack-Lynch was convicted but plea bargained down the same 30 year 2/3 – 1/3 sentence as Billy Rae.

Now fast forward a couple of weeks. Three teens chose two people (Michael Trinity and Rich Christianson) leaving a bar at random and robbed them at gunpoint. They then made them kneel in alley where they were shot execution-style in the head. The individuals involved were 15, 17 and 19-years old. The 19 year old, Dontaro Riddley, who had recently robbed a convenience store at gunpoint, had a four year prison term stayed in lieu of 6 months in the workhouse with the prison term used to encourage good behavior while in the workhouse. One month after his release from the workhouse, he executes two random men. The 17-year old girl and 15-year old boy had robbed another man an hour prior to the killing, and had placed the gun to the first victim’s head and pulled the trigger. The gun jammed and the two fled, sparing the life of the first victim who was left shaken but alive.

So the first thing that comes to mind is how things like this happen. I’m shocked at the poor sentencing in Minnesota and am quite certain that it is a large contributer to this sort of violence. After all, where’s the incentive to keep people from committing a senseless murder? Punishment should act as a deterrent by forcing somebody to think twice before they commit a crime. If they know that by committing a crime they face stiff consequences, there is the possibility that they may reconsider their actions.

Need proof? Take a country with severe punishment for crime like Singapore. In 2006 Singapore had 17 murders. All 17 were solved. 13 were crimes committed between known parties. That leaves just four random murders in the country of Singapore.

So what’s the difference? Singapore ranks number two (6.3 executions per million residents) for executions per capita. The United States ranks 20 (.23 executions per million people). Don’t let the anti-death penalty people fool you with the numbers. The United States may rank high in total number of executions, but per capita is the number of importance. We’re severely lagging a number of other countries in per capita executions, and by the numbers, some of the top countries are the safest with the lowest crime rates.

Not that I am saying we should execute everybody, but there is certainly some proof that capital punishment helps to reduce violent crime. Then again, so does prison. Lenient prison sentences and stayed prison sentences do very little to reduce violent crime. Of the three random crimes mentioned above, at least two of them were committed by people who were out on stayed prison sentences. Three people may still be alive today if the murderers were given the expected prison sentences for their previous crimes instead of the more lenient sentences they received.

So what am I saying? Lock everybody up? Execute everybody? No, of course not. But what I am saying is that violent offenders need to be punished in a manner that creates a deterrence to commit more violent crimes. We spend too much time and effort criminalizing things like smoking and filling up our prisons with people who have committed seemingly minor offenses (like drugs). If prisons are overcrowded then reevaluate the minor offenses and focus on ensuring violent criminals are removed from the streets and adequately punished for the crimes. Executing random people for the money in their wallets or purses is not a crime that should be satisfied with a 20-year prison sentence. Armed robbery with a pistol should not be a crime that gets 6 months in the workhouse. Terroristic threats with a pistol by an already convicted felon should not get probation. These are not punishments that deter people from committing more crime. We’re talking about basic psychology 101 here: If the punishment for an action is enough to create fear in the individual, the individual will be much less likely to do the action.

Will severe punishment stop crime? No, of course not. But it will certainly cut it down a bit. Until the bleeding hearts realize that fear=motivation and stop calling for more lenient sentences under the “rehabilitation works better” guise, we’re going to continue to see crimes that are not deterred by the criminal justice system.