3 ms·

> It's classic scientism, believing that an algorithmic sentence based on completely arbitrary rules is somehow better than an arbitrary sentence handed out by

> It's classic scientism, believing that an algorithmic sentence based on completely arbitrary rules is somehow better than an arbitrary sentence handed out by human judgment it may not be better, but, isn't it more predictable? also, doesn't it protect a judge and the justice system against charges of favoritism, discrimination, and other kinds of bias? i mean, i'm not a lawyer and i truly don't know ... but weren't these the sorts of reasons for coming up with these guidelines in the first place?

kpil 10y ago
But the point is that it's fake predictability, as you can't make arbitrarily complex rules and hope to have built the Totally Fair System. (Provably not, actually.) The best thing we can do is to admit it's not going to be perfect, and use our own reasoning and feelings, and make sure the process is transparent and the people are held accountable.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  > it's fake predictability so, a criminal defendant and their lawyer have no better chance of predicting the sentence handed down given guidelines than they would if there were no guidelines?
  - kpil 10y ago
    Guidelines are the opposite of a rule-based system, as you are free to use your judgement and use them for comparison only. Guidelines are not a black box that spits out a number of month in prison.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Guidelines are not a black box that spits out a number of month in prison. The Sentencing Guidelines are exactly a white box (a black box has concealed internal operations) that spits out sentences. OTOH, since they aren't mandatory (by Supreme Court ruling; they were originally statutorily mandatory), they don't produce exactly the same rule-based system as they superficially represent.