3 ms·
I don't disagree it could be much better and based on something other than arbitrary nonsense, but these guides are designed to bring consistency to sentences w
by mattnewton 10y ago
I don't disagree it could be much better and based on something other than arbitrary nonsense, but these guides are designed to bring consistency to sentences within the same jurisdiction which would make them fairer than completely arbitrary judge sentences. At least everyone is subject to the same arbitrary nonsense guidelines instead of the mood and familiarity of the judge.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Karunamon 10y agoI'm reminded of that quote about a "foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds", but when you consider that statistically, people get lighter sentences immediately after a lunch break [1], there's probably some value in removing the human from the equation... [1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889 http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889
- kakarot 10y agoExcept that in practice, we are still subject to a judge's mood and familiarity. I am still trying to clear myself of a wrongful conviction, a misdemeanor for which I was given the maximum allowed sentence of six months in county jail, that was given to me, in spite of blatant inconsistency across half a dozen witness reports and 2 years of court battles, because the judge said, "I think you are lying" and was angry that he had to see me so many times and I didn't just take a plea deal like a good little citizen. And I wish I was an exception. But this happens everywhere and I doubt the presiding judge could even recount half of these guidelines. It's all arbitrary.