In Montana (and all of America) we are not discouraging law breakers because our court system is not focused on the victim. We must reorient courts to focus on victim restitution. If elected, I will propose a system wherein aggressors would be required to compensate their victims. In addition, they would also have to pay the cost of police apprehension and the costs of their trial. If they were imprisoned, they would also have to pay the cost of incarceration.

All trials would be by jury in the community of the victim. The aggressor could remain free but would still have to pay the debt. Those aggressors who did not pay would go to a working prison. In that case the amount owed by the aggressor would be increased by the costs of imprisonment. Most aggressors would probably make the payments rather than risk the huge increase in obligation and the loss of their liberty for such a long time.

The insurance industry would quickly offer victim insurance. An immediate payment would be paid to the insured victim by the insurance company. Then the insurance company would apply significant control over the aggressor to ensure his/her payment to them.

Of course without insurance the victim would assume the risk of receiving time payments. Time payments are better than no payment at all (which is what victims receive today). Today victims are robbed twice. Once by the thief (aggressor) and again by the taxes paid to catch and jail the aggressor.

Under today's system, few aggressors are caught. To change this, we need to focus on crime prevention. I would put private police forces on an incentive basis. In other words the less crime the more they would be paid. Then, if someone did break the law, more resources would be available to catch the criminals.

In Oro Valley, Arizona, a private police force was contracted to prevent crime. They checked homes of vacationers, and instructed residents on the use of guns and other ways to thwart burglars. Thefts dropped 95%, giving the private police more time to apprehend the remaining 5%.

Today, half of our police efforts are dedicated to victimless crimes. Under the system I propose, our police would focus on real crimes -- theft, rape, murder, and fraud.

In today's court system, people accused of crimes are routinely represented by public defenders who are often inadequate in relation to the huge government resources of the prosecutors. Over 90% of these defendants plea bargain, even though many are innocent. An accused person, under today's system, can be bankrupted by false charges and pressured into confessing, even though innocent. Indeed this is one of the government's favorite tactics against individuals.

Under the system I propose, losers would have to pay the winners' costs (and the court costs). False accusers (and those bringing frivolous law suits) would be liable for all costs. Innocent defendants would then be able to get top-notch law firms to represent them on a contingency basis. Plea bargaining would be reduced as it would then be ineffective.

This entire system could eventually be privatized -- police, courts, jails -- all of it! Government involvement would be minimal. All the government would do is to ensure that each participant in the system functioned for the interest of the people - an easy task where competition would force this function. That means no taxes from the general public. The aggressors would eventually pay for all of it. Crime would be significantly reduced.

Studies show that requiring aggressors to compensate their victims, significantly deters crime. Restitution, rather than punishment and "rehabilitation," is the most effective crime control of all systems. It also provides a guide to law makers about what constitutes a crime B no victim means no crime.

The Montana constitution (Article II, Declaration of Rights; Section 28, Criminal Justice Policy -- rights of the convicted) indicates: "Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on the principles of prevention, reformation, public safety, and restitution of victims." It seems that few Montana law makers understand the meaning of "restitution of victims." For there is virtually no provision for victim restitution under Montana laws.

I will propose sweeping laws (and constitutional amendments, as required) that focus on the principles established in the above system. Crime in Montana will be significantly reduced. The cost of crime will be born by the criminal not the tax payer.