THE BEST SENTENCE MONEY CAN BUY

Can money really pay for everything? This certainly appears to be the
case in Florida, where two men who were convicted of felonies for
causing the deaths of their passengers in alcohol-related car crashes
were given reduced sentences last week because they offered to pay
money to the victims' families.

Under Florida state law, if the victim's family agrees with the
lesser term in exchange for such restitution, judges are free to
deviate from recommended punishment guidelines, and they typically
do. One of the offenders sentenced last week agreed to pay $50,000;
he will serve 81UKP2 years in prison. The other promised $900 per
month over 15 years in addition to two years in prison, the St.
Petersburg Times reported Nov. 26.

This system works quite well for those able to afford substantial
compensation, but what about other defendants who cannot afford
restitution? It would seem that their poverty leaves them simply out of luck.

In other, similar Florida cases involving traffic deaths, defendants
who are unable to afford restitution to the victims' families, or in
cases where the families simply refuse, can face decades in prison -
including defendants without prior criminal records. As for the men
given lighter prison terms, each have prior records, including theft
and numerous traffic violations.

While the wishes of the victims' families should be taken into
account and the proper reparations made, there are other facts to
consider. Not only must offenders pay their debt to their victims,
they must also do so to society. Just because people have the money
to pay off the family doesn't mean they should be excused from
imprisonment. Any restitution should be combined with a jail sentence
appropriate to the crime, and in cases in which the crime results in
death, a reduced sentence should not even be an option.

Restitution should not ignore defendants' ability to pay, especially
if the seriousness of the sentence is at issue. A system used by the
Iowa Department of Corrections, where a percentage of inmates'
earnings are diverted to victims' aid, is a far better approach to
the matter. The financial suffering of victims should not be ignored,
but to further punish those unable to pay, while wealthy criminals
essentially buy lighter sentences, is wrong. This essentially reduces
our legal system to the pardon days of the past, when buying
forgiveness was the norm.

This debate brings to light how social factors - ethnicity, class,
wealth, status - factor into sentencing decisions and whether they
should or not. In the eyes of the law, all citizens are equal, but
this becomes impossible when a person's financial status is a factor.

If an offender receives a lighter sentence after offering to pay a
victim's family, the offender is not realizing the full consequences
of her or his actions. In turn, the most important purpose of the law
- - deterring future crimes - may be damaged, and the offender left
more likely to repeat the offense: If money solved the problem
before, why not rely on it again?

The different facts and different circumstances of each case must
always be taken into account when sentences are handed out, but the
offender's wealth should never be the deciding factor.