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: Neocon who wrote (15467)	6/25/2002 4:53:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

We cannot afford a system of justice that can be accused of being too arbitrary.... 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. I take your point and it's an important one. It is clearly something that must be considered before such a paradigm shift be made. I don't consider it an absolute obstacle. We currently have a notion of technical fairness that involves criteria and treating everyone the same. Unions are famous for insisting that everyone be treated the same because they are suspicious of arbitrary action and you know what a mess that is. You can't fire a teacher. Technical fairness is not necessarily fair, it's merely not demonstrably unfair. If we want to look at other models, we need to at least consider some risks. There are problems with the current scheme, too. 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.......... I understand that's your preferred model. But consider mine as well. Reparations need to be made and society needs to be protected. Malice does not necessarily need to be punished.