Just because two suspects are behind bars and charged with killing Eve Carson, do not breathe a collective sigh of relief. Another crime is about to be committed, and although not nearly as serious as the recent tragedy, it affects you, me and every taxpayer of North Carolina -- not to mention the additional pain and suffering it will cause Eve Carson's family.

You are now going to see millions of your tax dollars being used to prosecute this case.

Please don't get me wrong -- I believe that every defendant should get a full and complete defense, regardless of ability to pay. The problem stems from the fact that we, as a society, have structured our criminal justice system to focus on vengeance rather than punishment. We have structured our laws to punish not the actions of criminals, but the outcomes.

This has resulted in ridiculously complex legislation, interpretation and ensuing prosecution that only benefits and enriches one class of citizen -- lawyers. It does not help society rid itself of people capable of murder.

Now we will be subjected to months of endless psychiatric examinations, expert witnesses and evidence to determine the state of mind and premeditation of the defendants. This is because their punishment now depends on all these factors.

And all of these factors are so subjective that they become a trial lawyer's dream -- it can cause trials to go on for years. The trial will take on a life of its own and be focused on the causes and results of that fateful night, rather than on the actions. For example, had Eve Carson only been wounded, a completely different trial would take place.

Our gun laws do not work. When I was young, I never once saw a policeman at school. And now every school, including elementaries, has one. So maybe it's time to think of a different strategy.

If someone were to shoot at my child, I would want his or her punishment to be the same regardless of the outcome. When you take the emotion out of it and look at things objectively, what difference should it make if they missed, injured or killed their target? Why should their punishment be any different depending on the outcome of their criminal act, how good or bad was their aim, the skill of doctors, or just plain luck?

If we were to leave vengeance to a higher power, and simply determine once and for all which actions we will not tolerate and what the punishment for those actions should be (regardless of outcome), we would have made a monumental leap in our criminal justice system. We might just stem the tide in gun violence that plagues this country.

For example, I would suggest for your consideration three categories of gun violations, with a fixed and non-negotiable sentencing for each:

n Category 1: carrying or possessing an illegal firearm;

n Category 2: using but not firing a firearm at another person (robbery, hostage taking, etc.); and

n Category 3: shooting at another person, regardless of outcome.

After all, isn't a person who shoots at your child dangerous whether or not he misses, injures or kills his target?

What if we set the punishments for a first violation of these crimes to be five years, 20 years and "life" for categories 1, 2, and 3 respectively?

Your first instinctive reaction might be: "Shouldn't someone who kills another human being get a harsher punishment than if he does not?" If you take all emotion out of it and think logically, the answer is a clear and resounding "NO!" Give them as harsh a punishment as you wish, but such punishment again should be based on the actions and not on the unpredictable outcome.

Your second reaction might be, "Can our prisons hold all these people"? If we can't incarcerate people who violate our gun laws and get them off the streets because the prisons are overcrowded, then we have two choices: release the hundreds of people from prison who are in there for petty drug crimes, or build more prisons with the money that we would save by not having to spend millions of dollars prosecuting violent crime.

Your third reaction might be, "What about the death penalty?" The answer: Although indirectly correlated, these are two different issues. If society deems that the penalty for a Category 3 gun crime should be the death penalty, then so be it. But whatever penalty is decided upon, it should once again be based on the actions of the perpetrator and not the results of that action.

In summary, as long as we make our gun laws dependent on the outcome of violations, we have a completely subjective system that only overburdens our court system and allows gun violators to remain on the streets for months if not years.

By removing the outcomes of criminal actions from the criminal action itself, our gun laws would be made much simpler and much less subject to interpretation. Prosecutions would be speedy and objective. And in the end, we would rid our streets of gun violators much more quickly than our current outdated and cumbersome system.