An eye for an eye. This concept has been around for millennia and the reason is has been around so long is simple; it works.

The problem with our criminal justice system today is that the 'deterrent' factor simply isn't there. For some crimes the payoff far outweighs the risk and for others the punishment isn't enough to make the criminal think twice before proceeding.

The answer is 'an eye for an eye'.

I'm willing to wager that there isn't but more than a handful of people in our country that don't secretly wish to see the serial rapist taken care of with 'an eye for an eye' or a habitual child abuser abused himself.

By using an eye for an eye system, criminals would know without a doubt that if they're caught they'll be subject to the same criminal activity, or worse.

Think back to the Beltway Sniper case. I would have truly preferred seeing the suspects released (with tight surveillance, of course) after being told that they'd been sentenced to die by a random sniper attack.

Law enforcement snipers could take random 'close call' shots at the convicted murderers as often as they wish just to keep them in as much fear as they kept the East Coast, until such time as the judge ordered the final shots to be taken.

Seeing that would most certainly deter future snipers, such as the Ohio highway killer, from acting.

Even those committing lesser crimes such as shoplifting or gas drive-offs would be subject to 'eye for an eye'. For example, being convicted of shoplifting would come with a sentence of having a digit of your choice amputated. Because the criminal stole something small yet valuable from another citizen, society should steal something small yet valuable from the criminal.

Think about the repercussions for someone convicted of spousal abuse or domestic battery. The perpetrator would face the same beatings he inflicted on others.

I doubt there is a more powerful deterrent than knowing your punishment would be as severe and permanent as the crime.

Unfortunately we'll never see 'an eye for an eye' in our country. There are two main reasons; the first is the 'it could be me' issue and the second is the 'error in prosecution' concept.

Those with the power to write sentencing policy will never create severe punishments for crimes they feel they have even a remote possibility of being convicted of. Take Enron for example.

When the true magnitude of the Enron boys' actions is considered, the lives ruined number in the thousands. Meager nest eggs that took a lifetime to build were wiped out in an instant. Entire retirement accounts were gutted. Those in line for a nice retirement must now face the welfare line and work until their death.

The punishment for this crime should be immediate seizure and liquidation of all assets owned by those involved. The criminals should be sentenced to a lifetime of welfare and homeless shelters.

Many of those making sentencing policies and guidelines, though, could very well find themselves in a similar situation thus they're more apt to choose lighter punishments for those convicted.

The solution to this problem is simple; put it to a vote. Just as 12 members of the general public will decide a suspect's guilt or innocence, let members of the public choose sentencing guidelines.

The issue of 'error in sentencing' is more complex than the simple 'conflict of interest' of the policy makers.

Our entire legal system revolves around the simple issue of 'convincing'. We need to convince 12 people that the suspect perpetrated the crime.

It would seem, on paper at least, that in order to be convicted of a crime a suspect must have motive, means and opportunity. Beyond that there must be physical proof that the suspect did indeed commit the crime.

The opposite would also, on paper, seem to be true - without motive, means, opportunity or proof the suspect could not have commit the crime.

The difference between the paper version of our legal system and the real-world version lies in the minds of 12 of our peers.

Lawyers have become less and less tied to the letter of the law and more and more tied to the psychology of the jury. Just take a look at the OJ Simpson case. Although every sane person in America can see the means, motive, opportunity and proof, the lawyers convinced the jury through a variety of psychological exercises such as misdirection that there was indeed a reasonable doubt.

Our lawyers have become nothing more than magicians and illusionists and our courts nothing more than the parlors they perform in.

The answer to this issue is simple; professional juries or at the very least minimum education and experience requirements that jurors must meet.

Even with today's lenient legal system nothing scares me more than to be wrongly charged with a crime and then have an 18-year-old uneducated high school dropout involved with deciding my fate.

It's a bit ironic; more care is taken when hiring a burger-flipper at McDonalds than is taken when selecting someone to decide if another man lives or dies.

By having professional jurors we would be almost guaranteed to have knowledgeable people familiar with the standard lawyers' psychological tricks deciding our guilt or innocence.

I fear the all of these ideas, though, will never come to fruition. Until we begin to elect judges, district attorneys and representatives willing to put our wants and needs before their own careers we will not see any change in the legal system.

Until then the battering husband will continue to batter, copy-cat murders will still take place and child abusers will have no fear.

This is exactly the type of society I'd hoped to live in!