This Year’s Missing Argument

What’s missing from this election year rhetoric that dominated every other election year in which Terry Branstad was a candidate?  The talk of reinstating capital punishment in Iowa.  However, it goes much further than that.  There has been little or no discussion of enhancing penalties, creating new crimes, cracking down on certain drug dealers (no pun intended), or the criminal justice system in general.

What has kept the death penalty and criminal sanctions out of discussion this time around?  As far as the death penalty is concerned, both Governor Culver and Branstad favor the concept of state-sanctioned death for committing capital murder.  If Culver is re-elected, we will probably hear the end of the issue for at least four years.  Although Culver is a proponent of the death penalty, he doesn’t initiate the cry for legislation.  If Branstad is elected (or would we say re-elected, as well), we can expect several instances throughout his term in which he will tout the need for reinstating the death penalty in Iowa after a half century of living fine without it.

Setting the death penalty aside, it’s difficult to find any trace of “tough on crime” issues in debates, advertisements, or mud-slinging.  To emphasize this fact, I never thought I would see the day in which the campaign for Iowa’s attorney general came down to gay marriage, consumer protection, and health care coverage?  When competition for the top law enforcement office in the state becomes a battle of social issues, we shouldn’t expect the campaign for the office of governor to focus on criminal issues.

The lack of proving who’s tougher on crime this election cycle might indicate that Iowa has passed all the laws necessary to deal with every crime imaginable, or that Iowa’s punishments for crimes are just, or perhaps all the nasty perpetrators are locked up and can no longer offend society.  Realistically, it could be that, because it costs a lot of money to incarcerate felons, no one wants to explain how the state can afford to spend more tax dollars in order to be tougher on crime.  If an increase in spending is realized each year to offset crime, shouldn’t there be a point in which enough has been spent to curtail the increase in crime?  Surely, we must have hit that saturation point by now.

There are a lot of unanswered questions.  Fawkes-Lee & Ryan is committed to working toward sensible sentencing practices.  No matter who comes out on top on November 2, our dedication to ensuring common sense approaches to sentencing structure is based upon factors that rehabilitate the offender, protect society, and take the financial cost to the taxpayer into consideration.  The death penalty does none of this.  It’s a relief to know that this year’s debate on crime and punishment is not as prevalent as it has been in previous elections.

It’s time for Iowa policy makers to sit back and examine the sentencing structure in place and do some fine-tuning.  Some of that tinkering should include decreasing the thresholds of punishment for a few sentences that were created or enhanced in the past 40 years, mostly based upon emotion and political posturing.  We think the time is right for a practical approach for change.

Copyright © 2010 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

This entry was posted in Criminal Justice, Death Penalty, Issues and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *