4 ms·
> as opposed to, y'know, making a principled stand against unjust minimum sentencing requirements. While occasionally highly effective, it should be remembered
by Kalium 12y ago
> as opposed to, y'know, making a principled stand against unjust minimum sentencing requirements.
While occasionally highly effective, it should be remembered that falling on your sword is not generally an effective way to make a significant difference in a large system.
What do you think the judge should have done, bearing in mind that resigning in protest would almost certainly have resulted in little but his replacement?
- aaronbrethorst 12y agoA Bush 43 appointee and former Scalia clerk resigning in protest over what he sees as unjust sentencing, and perhaps working for the ACLU, like Steve Schmidt did on same-sex marriage would have sent a powerful message and also perhaps done some good by virtue of having a clearly very skilled legal practitioner working to change laws he found wrong.
- Kalium 12y agoIt would have sent a very powerful message to those already listening and looking to agree with it. It would not have sent a meaningful message to most, who would have never encountered this hypothetical message.
- e12e 12y agoThat is generally the nature of "powerful messages". If you're advocating change, most of that time will be spent talking to people that don't, won't listen. If not, change would already have happened.
- Kalium 12y agoThat's not the nature of activism, friend. If you're spending most of your time talking to people who don't or won't listen, it's because you aren't communicating effectively. People listen when you communicate effectively. That said, do not ever confuse people listening for people agreeing. They are very different things. Just because someone honestly listens to you does not mean they will come to agree with you. Also, people listen when you are willing to listen to them. Too many "conversations" are thinly veiled preaching.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- WaxProlix 12y ago> A Bush 43 appointee and former Scalia clerk resigning in protest over what he sees as unjust sentencing, and perhaps working for the ACLU, like Steve Schmidt ...who?
- stickfigure 12y agoWhat would have happened had he simply assigned a lesser sentence? Would the judge face criminal penalties? Seems unlikely, but IANAL. Maybe the right principled stand is to "do the right thing" and let a higher court face the same moral decision when challenged. Eventually you get to the top.
- Kalium 12y agoAs I understand it - and I am also not a lawyer - a judge generally does not have the power of disobey mandatory sentencing. I don't know if attempting to do so would be criminal, but it would not be a legitimate use of power and probably would not hold. Perhaps you're right, but what happens when you "do the right thing", it makes it to the top, and what comes back down is "Congress was clear"?
- stickfigure 12y agoMaybe someone at the top makes a principled stand as well. At the very least, they get to make subjective decisions about what is "cruel and unusual". And even if it doesn't hold, at least this particular judge can have a clear conscience. This is why I wonder what the penalties are. I can fault the judge for not wanting to be thrown in jail. On the other hand, if he's doing something that he recognizes as morally wrong simply to "follow the rules", he's a coward. "Following the rules" is not a moral defense. For sufficiently severe crimes, it's not even a legal defense (see: nazi camp guards).
- Kalium 12y agoMore likely what comes back down is "This is a general harm, not a specific harm, meaning it's the problem of Congress". At which point your principled stand has consumed significant time and money to accomplish very little. Activism has to be balanced against the costs and odds of success.
- stickfigure 12y agoIt seems to me that consuming significant time and money is a fair accomplishment. Morally offensive laws, processes, and behaviors should gum up the works. It provides an incentive to remove them.