1930’s the Shadow Radio Show saying, “Crime does not pay,”was wrong according to the Supreme Court.
The Chicago Tribune article titled, High Court limits “excessive fines” reported the final decision ruling that the Indiana Court was wrong to say the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the police seizure of a drug seller’s $42,000 Land Rover when he was caught using it to sell $400 of opium.
In other words, in a previous post on this issue, I brought up the 1930 Shadow Radio Show saying that “Crime Does Not Pay.,”
The Purpose of This Post
Is to update the issue and my opinion on this issue based on a King Solomon Wisdom Proverb.
There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end, it leads to death. (Proverb 14:12)
This proverb has a spiritual interpretation which I am applying literally to this issue because opium also leads to death.
What’s My Point?
SCOTUS ruled that taking away the $42,000 land rover used by the plaintiff to sell $400 of opium was in violation of the Eighth Amendment that the punishment must not be excessive to the crime.
In ancient times the law of an eye for an eye was based on the same premise to maintain fairness and justice to control an angry victim who may want greater revenge or punishment for someone who wronged him.
While I personally can understand the concept of the Eighth Amendment, I wonder if the Supreme Court realizes that 700,000 opium users have died from the drug, mainly opium laced with deadly fentanyl. overdoses in the USA since 1990.
Also, taking away a burglar’s tools, or gun, or car to transport drugs is a reasonable common-sense thing for the police to do to prevent a fool from just doing it again.
Will this ruling perhaps open the door for every criminal’s lawyer will use as a legal precedent to sue States to return their expensive vehicle, profits, burglary tools, guns, etc. etc. that they used in a commission of a crime or to keep whatever loot they acquired from the commission of their crimes?
In China, anyone smuggling opium will receive the death penalty.
So much for Senator in Texas that suggested using the 13 billion dollars that El Chapo accumulated from selling tons of drugs in the USA to build the border wall.
In My Opinion,
There is a psychological definition of why the Court ruled in favor of the drug seller. It is called “psychological set” that can happen if you look at a problem too closely for too long, you may become distracted in meaningless details and fail to comprehend what is most important.
In other words, criminals should not profit from selling drugs, especially opium. At the very least, the law should make selling drugs a little more uncomfortable than to be allowed to sit on a cushy seat in a luxury vehicle while selling drugs that can: lead to death.”
Read the Soured Links the article and previous posts that explain in more detail about psychological set in regards to wisdom.
Was the author of this idiom, “Too much knowledge can be a dangerous thing,” an applicable truth for this issue?
Was the Shadow more brilliant than the Supreme Court on this issue?
Are you happier to know now that the Shadow was wrong?
How would you feel about this ruling if someone in your family died from an opium overdose?
Too Much Knowledge
Paradox of Death Penalty for Opium Smuggling