Not so easy money

A law in Pennsylvania to make weaponless bank robbery sentencing more strict.

I often point out these cases where some scumbag passes a note to a bank teller and gets a bag full of money. Banks have become very soft targets. I do understand that banks have a policy of just turning over the money in order to not provoke a violent situation, all while under the guise of the FDIC refunding the stolen money. I get that. I still think this is a bad policy as: a) scumbags have more incentive to steal because the consequences are lessened; b) more scumbags will steal more frequently because of a), thus there is a greater potential for violence; c) regardless if the FDIC have reimbursed anyone in the past, they are using red ink now instead of black - take that for what you will.

In decades past, America had more balls, and dealt with thievery under more severe terms. These days, we can't seem to stomach that type of prevention, which is fine, but there needs to be less incentive to steal. The prospect of spending forever in prison may suffice, but perhaps the thought of getting shot to death would work better; someone who makes a verbal or written threat of violence in order to extort money or property should be considered a lethal threat, whether they display a weapon or not. This is why most bank robbers of yore ended up with more bodily orifices than the Lord gave them. Ammunition is cheap; prison is expensive.

I think this law might just be a step in the right direction.