Let me abuse pythonic values: IMHO, minimum sentencing requirements and a rigid adherence to stare decisis is harmful.[1] On the other hand, it is helpful to

Let me abuse pythonic values: IMHO, minimum sentencing requirements and a rigid adherence to stare decisis is harmful.[1] On the other hand, it is helpful to have a reasonable expectation for how things are going to turn out.[2] I don't have the time to compare and contrast "casuistry" with legal realism, but my hunch is it would end up with the same result: judges figure out how they want to rule and then pick and choose what law to use to get there. [1] PEP 8 (Quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson), "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds". [2] PEP 20, "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."