3 ms·

> Should the penalty for upsetting a judge be life minus the 10 years you were already looking at? By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge

> Should the penalty for upsetting a judge be life minus the 10 years you were already looking at? By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge, you should be let go? > This just tells me the justice system is fucked. It's not. It's based on the moral that people who made a mistake and regret it (or at least plea to change) are less bad than people who did something wrong and continue to refuse to even accept it being something wrong. You can also frame it as them being 'closer' to living a good life and therefore needing less punishment to get them to actually be good, though technically punishments also have the secondary effects of determent and protecting society.

notch898a 4y ago
>By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge, you should be let go? This makes no sense at all. You can't impose much punishment past life; I was never proposing SUBTRACTING time for offending the judge just not adding it. I'm baffled by your logic. I was comparing the above offered differences of life to 10 years, which the difference of the two is life minus 10. >It's based on the moral that people who made a mistake and regret it (or at least plea to change) are less bad than people who did something wrong and continue to refuse to even accept it being something wrong. The law isn't about bad and good though. Growing a pot plant could possibly be "not bad" but still be illegal. Selling a prescription opiate in some circumstances may be "bad" but legal. The law is in essence a description of punishments for behaviors that may or may not have objective connection to good or bad. Also I reject the thesis that 10 years versus something more must make them more "good" and in fact hypothesize it may have the opposite effect. IMO the judge should be objective purveyors of the law. Your 1A opinion to whether your breaking of the law was good or bad should be irrelevent to senencing. If somebody says "fuck the law and I'd be happy to do it again" even regarding events of horrible violence IMO should be first amendment protected speech free from additional punishment. Of course these are mere opinions, and not to suggest yours is wrong.

notch898a 4y ago

>By that logic, if you're looking at life and upset the judge, you should be let go? This makes no sense at all. You can't impose much punishment past life; I was never proposing SUBTRACTING time for offending the judge just not adding it. I'm baffled by your logic. I was comparing the above offered differences of life to 10 years, which the difference of the two is life minus 10. >It's based on the moral that people who made a mistake and regret it (or at least plea to change) are less bad than people who did something wrong and continue to refuse to even accept it being something wrong. The law isn't about bad and good though. Growing a pot plant could possibly be "not bad" but still be illegal. Selling a prescription opiate in some circumstances may be "bad" but legal. The law is in essence a description of punishments for behaviors that may or may not have objective connection to good or bad. Also I reject the thesis that 10 years versus something more must make them more "good" and in fact hypothesize it may have the opposite effect. IMO the judge should be objective purveyors of the law. Your 1A opinion to whether your breaking of the law was good or bad should be irrelevent to senencing. If somebody says "fuck the law and I'd be happy to do it again" even regarding events of horrible violence IMO should be first amendment protected speech free from additional punishment. Of course these are mere opinions, and not to suggest yours is wrong.