(February 20, 2020 at 1:24 pm)LastPoet Wrote:(February 20, 2020 at 12:06 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Joe is on trial for a particularly brutal mugging, the sentence for which is three years in prison. This sentence was suggested via a public opinion poll and enacted by duly elected legislators.
Joe is found guilty. He shows no remorse during his sentencing, and can’t promise not to carry out a similar attack in the future. Instead of imposing the sentence permitted by law, the judge orders Joe to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $1000 fine.
Has the judge been just or merciful?
Boru
Option c) the judge is a bad one at that.
Had the defendant claimed effect of drugs/finantial distress, etc for its actions, showed regret and the will to reintegrate on society via court ordered directives, then it would be just to lower the sentence. Also hinges on the severity of the mugging. Was it murder, attempted murder or just a few bruises on the victim?
It would still incur in a finite punishment. Humans like us have a rather limited expiration date. To the max is life in prison and even that is relieved by death. The end. Hell is for those lilly livered people that want an afterlife. Me? I get everything from life, that big bowl of salt with some sugar nuggets betwixt. Until the final slumber where you dream no more.
When presented with a hypothetical - generally speaking - the respondent is not allowed to add provisos of his own.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
