4 ms·
As 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
by Kalium 12y ago
As 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.
- Kalium 12y agoGumming up the works tends to be the sort of thing that is both morally satisfactory and gains you more enemies than allies. So I submit that it's very rarely a good choice of tactics.