4 ms·

The OP is calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than many murderers get. It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this ca

by brazzy 13y ago

The OP is calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than many murderers get. It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably. Your empathy towards the victim causes you to want revenge, believing it to be justice.

girvo 13y ago
People in power over the rest of us should be held to higher standards. That should be the trade-off. As it stands, it is not the case, and there are few consequences for actions like these. That should change. Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else. This is something that should be told again and again and again to the juries in murder trials. I think it's just as much a scandal that the jury convicted Morton without substantial evidence as that the prosecutor withheld potentially exonerating evidence.
nate_meurer 13y ago
> "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably." That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case. I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.
- brazzy 13y ago
  So basically an eye for an eye all over again. Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences at all cost to reduce their personal risk.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    I'm very much against "eye for an eye" as a general principle, but in this particular case -- in the inner workings of our judicial system -- I think it has utility. > "Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences..." That is indeed part of the point! If we can agree that sentencing has spiraled out of control in this country (and I suspect we can), then perhaps a strong disincentive for misbehavior within the system would be beneficial?

by brazzy 13y ago

girvo 13y ago

People in power over the rest of us should be held to higher standards. That should be the trade-off. As it stands, it is not the case, and there are few consequences for actions like these. That should change. Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else.

brazzy 13y ago
> Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else. This is something that should be told again and again and again to the juries in murder trials. I think it's just as much a scandal that the jury convicted Morton without substantial evidence as that the prosecutor withheld potentially exonerating evidence.

nate_meurer 13y ago

> "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably." That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case. I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.

brazzy 13y ago
So basically an eye for an eye all over again. Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences at all cost to reduce their personal risk.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  I'm very much against "eye for an eye" as a general principle, but in this particular case -- in the inner workings of our judicial system -- I think it has utility. > "Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences..." That is indeed part of the point! If we can agree that sentencing has spiraled out of control in this country (and I suspect we can), then perhaps a strong disincentive for misbehavior within the system would be beneficial?