I didn't mean to imply that your desire was to debate whether the justice system worked or not. I was stating my preference, primarily to avoid a pointless argument about child killers.
Back to your original point summarized in the latest reply, I am one of the people who think the convicted felon in this case should be thrown in jail. It's obvious to me, but clearly it is not obvious to you. That leads me to wonder whether you think punishment for any conviction is ever warranted, or indeed, whether it's fair to even have trials?
I can agree that law and absolute justice are two separate concepts. I am thrilled to live in America and reap the benefits of our justice system. I am not naive and I don't think it's perfect or even close to perfect. On the other hand, I think the primary goal of the justice system is to maintain order in the society, and our system appears to do that very well.
Assumption. You say he 'is' guilty when all we've done is to find him guilty relative to the law. The matter in question is a case "relative to the law." It's all I am concerned with, and all that it is possible to be concerned with. I don't wish to append "relative to the law" to every statement here, but you can feel free to do so.
So punishing someone arbitrarily is OK with you? It's not arbitrary. He lives in a society with laws. He was accused of breaking one, tried in a court of law, and found guilty. He is now subject to the penalty for the offense.
If he's covering up for someone else, it's not relevant? Not in the slightest. If he's covering up for someone, his decision to do so put him in this situation. If he is covering up for someone, he probably has evidence to that effect, and he can introduce that evidence in an appeal.
You're digressing from the mode of conversation. This was a question which had not been aswered at the time judgement was passed, so it's a bit late now. In our justice system, there are sentencing guidelines and precedents that are known at the time judgement is passed, but the exact sentence and prison (if applicable) is not known until after judgement is passed. It's a good system.
And how long is that? The people who act in the system, including the defendant's lawyer, know the sentence and they know what portion of the sentence he will probably serve. That's how the system works. If he had a longer sentence, he could affect the outcome by his behavior in prison. In this case, because the sentence is short, that might be unlikely.
Not relevant. Justice is justice. Our society has chosen a justice system and that is the definition in use. The goal of that system is not to achieve some nirvana of absolute justice. It's impractical. Just for starters, the people in our society--or any other--could never agree on an absolutist "justice is justice" method and so we have chosen a practical solution.
Will shooting children save the world from over-population? - Not relevant. You cannot take measure without knowing what consequence that measure has. No one in this discussion has proposed shooting children as a cure for over-population, and your reply is so far off the "factors" discussion that I am not going to bother replying to this specific point.
If your goal is to practice arguing, I'll leave the discussion now. If you want to seriously debate whether the justice system worked in this particular case--including the definition of "worked"--I might continue on.
Does his conviction exclude the possibility of him being innocent? I believe he admitted his guilt. Even if he didn't, we are concerned with his guilt or innoncence relative to our justice system. The case was tried and a verdict returned. He's guilty.
Does punishment the fit the crime? That's a matter of opinion. I think it does.
Is there another explanation for why he did it? Not relevant.
In what jail should he be thrown in to? It depends on what's available. I assume he will not go to a maximum security prison and so he won't be thrown in with murderers.
How long should he be forced to stay there? For the length of his sentence or until existing rules and guidelines that apply to all similar criminals reduce it to something less.
How will throwing him in jail compensate the victim of his crime? Not relevant. This was a criminal case, not a civil case.
What problem does jail-time solve? Not relevant. In my opionion, however, it acts as a deterrent to other people who might consider doing something similar.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean to imply that your desire was to debate whether the justice system worked or not. I was stating my preference, primarily to avoid a pointless argument about child killers.
Back to your original point summarized in the latest reply, I am one of the people who think the convicted felon in this case should be thrown in jail. It's obvious to me, but clearly it is not obvious to you. That leads me to wonder whether you think punishment for any conviction is ever warranted, or indeed, whether it's fair to even have trials?
I can agree that law and absolute justice are two separate concepts. I am thrilled to live in America and reap the benefits of our justice system. I am not naive and I don't think it's perfect or even close to perfect. On the other hand, I think the primary goal of the justice system is to maintain order in the society, and our system appears to do that very well.
Assumption. You say he 'is' guilty when all we've done is to find him guilty relative to the law.
The matter in question is a case "relative to the law." It's all I am concerned with, and all that it is possible to be concerned with. I don't wish to append "relative to the law" to every statement here, but you can feel free to do so.
So punishing someone arbitrarily is OK with you?
It's not arbitrary. He lives in a society with laws. He was accused of breaking one, tried in a court of law, and found guilty. He is now subject to the penalty for the offense.
If he's covering up for someone else, it's not relevant?
Not in the slightest. If he's covering up for someone, his decision to do so put him in this situation. If he is covering up for someone, he probably has evidence to that effect, and he can introduce that evidence in an appeal.
You're digressing from the mode of conversation. This was a question which had not been aswered at the time judgement was passed, so it's a bit late now.
In our justice system, there are sentencing guidelines and precedents that are known at the time judgement is passed, but the exact sentence and prison (if applicable) is not known until after judgement is passed. It's a good system.
And how long is that?
The people who act in the system, including the defendant's lawyer, know the sentence and they know what portion of the sentence he will probably serve. That's how the system works. If he had a longer sentence, he could affect the outcome by his behavior in prison. In this case, because the sentence is short, that might be unlikely.
Not relevant. Justice is justice.
Our society has chosen a justice system and that is the definition in use. The goal of that system is not to achieve some nirvana of absolute justice. It's impractical. Just for starters, the people in our society--or any other--could never agree on an absolutist "justice is justice" method and so we have chosen a practical solution.
Will shooting children save the world from over-population? - Not relevant. You cannot take measure without knowing what consequence that measure has.
No one in this discussion has proposed shooting children as a cure for over-population, and your reply is so far off the "factors" discussion that I am not going to bother replying to this specific point.
If your goal is to practice arguing, I'll leave the discussion now. If you want to seriously debate whether the justice system worked in this particular case--including the definition of "worked"--I might continue on.
None of those factors seem relevant at all.
Does his conviction exclude the possibility of him being innocent?
I believe he admitted his guilt. Even if he didn't, we are concerned with his guilt or innoncence relative to our justice system. The case was tried and a verdict returned. He's guilty.
Does punishment the fit the crime?
That's a matter of opinion. I think it does.
Is there another explanation for why he did it?
Not relevant.
In what jail should he be thrown in to?
It depends on what's available. I assume he will not go to a maximum security prison and so he won't be thrown in with murderers.
How long should he be forced to stay there?
For the length of his sentence or until existing rules and guidelines that apply to all similar criminals reduce it to something less.
How will throwing him in jail compensate the victim of his crime?
Not relevant. This was a criminal case, not a civil case.
What problem does jail-time solve?
Not relevant. In my opionion, however, it acts as a deterrent to other people who might consider doing something similar.