Malice charity

Most charities are premised on help. One donates to help others - either those in need or those engaged in activities the donor approves. Often the funds so donated go in large part or in total for other purposes: administrative overhead, side projects of the charity or associated organization etc. But why must it always be the well meaning and large hearted who are bilked? Could one use such a mechanism to bleed the evil? I was impressed recently about persons quoted in the paper, expressing dissatisfaction with the degree of punishment to be meted out to a convinct. These people wanted more. Would they pay to get it?

The Malice Charity would not be named that, but would be that. Donors would sponsor some additional punishment or degrading act of their choice to be administered to a convict. Donors could pool resources or act singly.

The Malice Charity would be much like charities in which the donor ostensibly helps some suffering child, and receives good feelings by the thought of this help. and possibly also a picture of a dewy eyed child with new shoes on. Whether the help really occurs is a different matter, but it might. Or might not, according to administrative costs and other budget items. Similarly the Malice Charity donors would update about the deeds they fund and send photos of disgruntled / irate convicts. Donors could feel good about that, or possibly feel evil about that depending on how you think about it.

The other benefit of the Malice Charity is that, like other charities, it compiles a list of donors: people of a certain ilk who might be receptive to other similar appeals. I suspect that a list of people proven to have harm in their hearts would be a valuable commodity for political candidates and salesmen.