The folks in charge are overlooking obvious answer to jail overcrowding and legal backlog: Quit arresting so many people!

Go back to doing government's fundamental job of protecting us from real criminals – people who steal our cars, break into our homes, defraud us, or are violent – not just our immoral neighbors who offend us with their petty needs and vices.

And quit herding people who aren't real criminals through our criminal justice system – which is for real criminals. Then, these people who have not harmed others can keep their jobs, support their families, contribute to economy and pay taxes instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for their unneeded food, lodging and supervision in jail.

This will leave space to segregate violent and dishonest people who can't live socially with rest of us. Isn't that point of our criminal justice system?

If Indianapolis is true to national statistics, we spend nearly half of our criminal-justice resources fighting vice instead of crime. The distinction between vice and crimes is fundamental. As legal scholar Sir William Blackstone wrote, 'In all cases, crime includes an injury."

The Indiana Constitution grants jurisdiction to Indiana courts based on such harm or injury. 'All courts shall be open, and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law." (Article 1, Section 12)

This does not grant courts authority to punish those who merely offend us. Article 1, Section 37 of Constitution prohibits government from depriving people of liberty "otherwise than for punishment of crimes." (See also Article 1, Section 13 and 19.) If Brizzi, Bradford and Young enforced this simple covenant, jail overcrowding would likely vanish overnight.

Every time we waste our resources policing, prosecuting and imprisoning potheads and prostitutes, then car thieves, burglars or murderers go free. Plus, we lie about being true to constitution.

Why is this so hard to understand or discuss? Why are elders of our herd overlooking this practical, moral and constitutional consideration that is so utterly obvious?

###

Just what makes a man take his family and children to a troubled country, visit terrorist training camps and then end up getting embroiled in a war, end result of which he finds himself in prison for three years? Moazzam Begg has to a great extent controlled his own destiny. Whilst claiming to be as British as you and I he has clearly set his loyalties in his religion rather than his country. You and I, and majority of British Asians would not have rushed off to Pakistan on a mission.

Moazzam Begg might have received more sympathy if he had not charged Channel 4 to be interviewed. Considering that this is same man that wanted to be left alone to recover from psychological trauma he did come across as very calculating and calm in his narrative. Many reasons for his actions seem to have been intentionally omitted. If Begg had intended to seek sympathy and understanding for his actions then this clearly failed. His explanation raises more questions than answers.

If what Moazzam Begg has confirmed about torture and ill treatment of prisoners is correct, then USA has a huge moral obligation to put its house in order and clarify position with regard to prisoners held in no mans land in Cuba. International law dictates that people deserve better than this whatever their crime. The day world accepts intimidation and imprisonment without justice as norm, is a day we must all strive to make sure will not happen internationally. The US government needs to address this issue in order to re establish its credibility and long standing tradition of freedom and justice for all.

Moazzam Begg was released by Americans under guarantee that he would be monitored by UK authorities and his right to travel outside UK would be withdrawn.