"Criminal Contempt"

 This has to do with the bizarre, macabre, ritual of allowing family members to scream at criminals during the criminal's sentencing. Specifically, the murderer John Gardner  was sentenced to a life  plus 500 years without parole or pardon last week in a San Diego court. Putting this guy away for the rest of his life is appropriate because he admitted to kidnapping and murdering two teen aged girls. Plus, he agreed to the sentence to avoid the death penalty.  Sidebar: I do have an issue with the silly over sentencing just for dramatic effect. Isn't a life sentence without parole enough? Must the judge add 5oo years to the life sentence? It's as if we need to make sure that if Gardner comes back from the dead he will be incarcerated 4 more lifetimes. I think it's just weird. Why not just sentence them to imprisonment for eternity. That is by itself ridiculous but it does cover all paranormal possibilities.
I do realize the sentence overkill is for the benefit of the grieving families. It's designed to let the families know just how "pissed off" the court (i.e. society) really is at this person. It's akin to shooting him dead and then pumping in 8 more aggravation rounds.

However I digress.  What I want to write about the most is the process of allowing  family members to come into court and scream at the prisoner, cry, gnash their teeth and declare that if they had a gun they would shoot him and then plug him/her 8 more times for aggravation. This happens before the judge sentences the criminal even though in most cases the criminal  already knows what the sentence is likely to be. I understand the therapeutic value of venting anger and grief. However, it becomes a public spectacle that serves no lasting purpose. Let me make this analogy, a kid does something wrong and the parents before imposing consequences sits the kid down and rails against them for a period of time. Is that for the kid's benefit? Do you think that kid is listening and that a well spring of remorse is building up? No they sit, as John Gardner did with their head lowered and a sober expression on their face ignoring everything being said to them. You might as well yell at your cat for thirty minutes for scratching at the couch.

 If John Gardner or others like him were the type to be moved by family members coming unhinged at him; he probably wouldn't have murdered the two girls. Tell Hannibal Lecter he shouldn't eat his victims and he will look at you like you are the second course.

 Consider doing it this way: Let the family members meet privately with the criminal. The criminal is in a room where they can see and hear the family and the family members get one last time to say whatever they want. But doing it in in front of camera crews, newspaper reporters, the court and spectators is a lot more creepy than  it is productive..
Look Gardner did the crimes, and he agreed to be sent away. So let the families tell him privately how they feel, then the judge can sign the paper and away he goes. Can't we be less melodramatic in the way we deal with the uncivilized among us?