> [...] imagine a case where there is absolutely compelling grounds for thinking that [...] FYI the system which we are discussing does not entertain such a no

> [...] imagine a case where there is absolutely compelling grounds for thinking that [...] FYI the system which we are discussing does not entertain such a notion. Or else we wouldn't need or bother with juries, whose main job is to deliberate and argue over whether presented evidence is compelling enough to remove any possibility of doubt. > So given the legal "room" to hand down a harsher-than-would-otherwise-be sentence for some separate offense, that doesn't strike me as totally inappropriate or out of line with our expectations about what judges should do I... _wildly_ disagree with this. Not that my disagreement here should matter much – surely the justice/legal system has its own expectations here, that would trump yours or mine?