3 ms·
IANAL but it seems like "setting an example" is synonymous with "setting a precedent", which is a concept that seems fundamental to any legal system, even for c
by teawrecks 5y ago
IANAL but it seems like "setting an example" is synonymous with "setting a precedent", which is a concept that seems fundamental to any legal system, even for civil cases. Companies press charges against every slight infringement on their trademarks because if they don't, they're implicitly setting a precedent that the behavior is ok. If you aren't actively setting precedents, then legally it's the same as saying, "we're ok with anyone and everyone doing this all the time." Doesn't matter what governmental structure you have, as a society, we set boundaries in order to define the world we want to live in.
- porknubbins 5y agoPrecedent in common law systems applies more or less only to determining what the law is and is not really related to sentencing more strictly or leiniently (ie making an example of someone), so I don’t think they are synonymous.
- bennysomething 5y agoThe problem I have with send a message style justice is that it means the person is being treated as an individual they are being used for some sort of societal manipulation. The aim of written law is to attempt to treat everyone the same before the law I think this undermines that concept.
- Nasrudith 5y agoIt doesn't set a precedent though, it is just arbitrary beating of a scapegoat. So called "tough on crime" laws are a bad kneejerk idea but at least they are relatively consistent compared to "fuck this person in particular because I feel like it" of arbitrary example setting. The whole point of precedent being seen as a positive in law is because it makes legal outcomes more predictable.