3 ms·
> "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
by 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 agoSo 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 agoI'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?