Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15465)	6/25/2002 4:28:44 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

We cannot afford a system of justice that can be accused of being too arbitrary. If there were trust in the discretion of all concerned, tailoring the sentence through negotiation might have an appeal. But there is no such trust, and the situation is eminently abusable. The only way to maintain public trust is to have sentences be roughly similar for the same offenses, with some latitude for differences of circumstance. Second, even with restitution, there is the residual fact that the person acted with malice aforethought, and that return to the status quo ante does not address the offense proper. Of course, a fine is sometimes imposed in lieu of jail time, or one is made to do community service. I am in favor of alternative sentencing where it makes sense. Nevertheless, fines and involuntary servitude are meant to punish, as much as jail time. One's malice must be repaid, that is, one must be made to feel the consequence of having done something bad, and that consequence must exact a price, it cannot be good or neutral..........