Good reason and judgment. The prosecutor did not have to bring this case--he had the option of using his judgment. The judge could have dismissed this case. The jury could have not convicted--except that juries today are trained to believe that they don't have the right to make decisions based on their own reasoning. The governor could have given a pardon. The legislature could have rewritten the law. Each one of these is a group that is hell bent on worshiping the law, even if the law gives them the option of good reason and judgment. But why would you use your reasoning when you can instead revert and follow the letter of the law like a computer, no matter how many it hurts?
Frankly, I’m not seeing what is altogether unreasonable about the sentence in the first place, but leaving that aside, you didn’t answer my question.
How is an arbitrary system better? Seriously: how does that make for better policies? If there is no fundamental law (other than arbitrary whims of judges and prosecutors), how does one make decisions about his actions?
“Each one of these is a group that is hell bent on worshiping the law,...”
The sad part to me is that each one of these groups, excluding the jury, makes a living off of being hell bent on worshipping the law. They are highly motivated to ensure as many people are criminals as possible. Add to that the fact that many jurors are hell bent on ending their service as fast as possible, without consideration of the effects of their decisions, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Well said.
Two characteristics rarely found in the judicial system. Do we really want automatons who merely process the law without thought? I don't. I think it better to show a little too much leniency than to be overly harsh.