Allen Eghrari's attempt to equate the criminality of society's spendthrifts with its murderers (Weighing sins, 10/23) is laughable. Societies create programs, not laws, to help those in need. While a spendthrift's actions may be immoral, as he or she could use that money to help others, they certainly are not criminal. His implication that societies should regulate and/or punish the spending habits of their more affluent members opens up a Pandora's Box of immeasurable size.

Furthermore, I am puzzled at his compassion for repeat offenders who were prosecuted under the "three strikes, you're out" law. True, different crimes have different penalties based on their severity, and stealing videotapes is far less severe than murder. Using his same argument, though, the "little things" criminals do become serious problems, too. Retail theft contributes to higher prices; thus, all of society must pay more for the same product, partially because of shoplifters.

If a criminal has not wised up after two incarcerations, he or she obviously shows no signs of refraining from criminal behavior. Are these the types of people we want walking our streets? Can we guarantee that these individuals will not commit similar or more serious crimes in the future? I don't know about Eghrari, but I would rather err on the side of caution.