So I was reading a blog today by this guy Josh who writes here http://bookoftangents.blogspot.com anyhow on his site he asked the question if we take someones basic rights away for committing property crime are we valuing material goods as being of a greater worth than the criminals rights? I thought this was a really interesting idea, so for my first foray into the blogging world I'm going to try crafting a response.

Firstly, my instinct here is to say "YES! YES! Damn you society, damn you. You cold and callous beast, surely that toaster wasn't worth a man's freedom." but I really don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. We have to look deeper here and see the mechanic driving this; I have my toaster stolen, someone is caught charged and it is proven beyond doubt that this person is guilty and they are sent prison-wards. My toaster is returned, the crime is punished and Justice prevails. What matters here is what is being punished. If the crime being punished is theft of a toaster then I would think that taking someones freedom away is overkill (I'm sure you all understand this but I just want to make it clear, the toaster is representative of any property). However if what is being punished is the perpetrators theft of my right to feel safe then a prison sentence seems more appropriate, we are balancing the theft of one right with the confiscation of another.

P.S If any of you are interested I'm not actually a big fan of prison as a punishment for crime. Their capacity for psychological trauma can lead to problems adjusting to life upon release, their track record for actual rehabilitation is shocking and they are financially unwieldy. Community support, psychiatric assistance, community service and tracking bracelets are I feel better solutions, allowing criminals the chance to help society in return for it's forgiveness whilst the foundations are put in place to help this person find a life outside of crime.