How to Fight Crime ... With Bears

I once saw Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic Nun, staunch opponent of the death penalty, and author of the book Dead Man Walking, speak at Duquesne University about the reasons we should be against the death penalty. I won’t get into the crux of those reasons here, but I will tell you that I left the presentation that night agreeing with her. I will give you slight insight into why I feel this way, so if you do not want to read my opinion, make yourself a sandwich and skip the next few sentences. And I will start by assuring you that it has very little to do with any moral stance against the killing of convicted criminals, however I recognize the possible hiccups in our justice system that may allow for the execution of the innocent. To me, however, the most ridiculous thing about the death penalty is the amount of taxpayer money spent through the appeals process and the execution. According to Sister Prejean's research, the United States spends an extra $1.6 billion annually to prosecute cases using capital punishment over prison sentences. In North Carolina alone, the average death penalty case costs an extra $2.16 million more than normal cases. Obviously most of that money comes from – SURPRISE! – us.

Ok, now that the groundwork has been laid, the foundation poured, and you are seconds from closing out of this page, let me tell you that I have come up with a perfect alternative to capital punishment AND prison. Bears.

Sound stupid? Maybe. Practical? Likely not. Perfect in every way? In a word – you bet. This is why it would work: bears are big and tough and can inflict amazing amounts of pain on humans. Could there be a better crime deterrent?

How it Would Work

As a deterrent against multiple offenders, a bear fight would be used only as punishment to repeat criminals whom jail had obviously little to no affect on. The judge would have the option of using two types of bears for the punishment: the grizzly bear (average weight between 250 and 600 pounds.) and the polar bear (average weight between 330 and 550 pounds for females and 725 and 1,500 pounds for males). Bear selection would depend on the severity of the crime and corresponding jail sentence attached to the specific case. For instance, for a former felon convicted of pre-meditated murder, the judge and jury could authorize a 5 round (5 minutes per round) fight against a 1,200 lb. polar bear.

The fights themselves would consist of rounds of a length to be determined by judge and jury. There would be no weapons available for the convicted party, but for crimes of a lesser nature (financial crimes, simple theft, etc.) where capital punishment would never be an option, the convicts would have the option of head-gear to protect from a direct shot to the head. The bears, dependant upon the crime, would not be able to use their teeth in all instances. Each fight would take place within the walls of a penitentiary and be overseen by highly trained law enforcement and national wildlife experts.


Why it Would Work

Part of the reason the justice system in this country doesn’t always work is because there is rarely a direct physical consequence related to the crime, save for the death penalty and we’ve already discussed why that makes no sense. Serving time in jail has now become cool (ask Paris Hilton) and only moderately scary (unless your Joe Francis). You get meals everyday, have time to work out, and in many cases don’t have to work. This is a lazy person’s dream. Having to fight a bear would likely shatter that dream. In addition, it would greatly reduce the cost of all court cases. While I have no idea how much it would cost to keep bears in good condition, I know it couldn’t be $1.6 billion annually.
- It would also keep the jail population to a minimum as it is a “catch and release” program – meaning if you survive the fight, you are free to go.
- There would be little to no harm done to the bears involved. Even the toughest and most skilled hand to hand fighters in this world could not injure a 1,000 lb. polar bear. They just couldn’t.
- The punishment would finally fit the crime. A repeat criminal convicted of murder would likely be killed, or so effectively maimed that they would be unable to commit additional crimes. For lighter crimes, the criminal would be allowed to wear pieces of protective equipment to protect them from death, but not pain. Rounds would be shortened or lessened to more closely fit the relative punishment incurred by jail time.
- It would truly be a “scared straight” situation. Children would see the obvious benefits to their health by staying away from crime and in turn, bear fights.

I know what you’re thinking. “Can we use bears to fight terrorism?” In a word? Most definitely. Should we catch Osama Bin-Laden, when he is inevitably convicted of crimes against humanity and the Bush family, he could be sentenced to a battle royal against 6 full sized polar bears in a steal cage with a latter.

Or he could be forced to run the Bearauntlet. It is a proven fact that grizzly bears love salmon. So for exceedingly criminal acts and inhuman convicts, a 1,000 foot long line of grizzly bears could be assembled for the criminal to run through holding a salmon in each hand. It is unlikely this person would commit that crime again.

In summation: Kill someone? Fight a bear. Caught spying for another country? Bear fight. Convicted of terrorism charges? Enjoy the polar bear ring. Steal an O’Henry? Female grizzly time. And to think, it only took just under 1,000 words for me to solve the problem of capital punishment. Bears are large.