1457 pts ยท February 22, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bko5GgK5v8&list=PLDNCCj46C34AgW7314tDcizn8qFcoENLO
Astartes. 5 part series on youtube.
Walt bleeds out in the last episode, correct.
Nope, although it is rare, the judge can go against the recommendations of the prosecution.
the person they felt was the least culpable and gave them a bargain, which included giving testimony etc. against the 'ringleaders'.
I really wonder if they needed one of them to flip on the others, as they were worried about the kidnapping etc. sticking so they chose[1]
I searched for the transcript of the case for a bit and couldn't readily find it, so I have no idea what the judge's rationale was.
he should have faced maximum county jail time, with a much longer probation. But he really should have went to federal (more than a year).
While I understand the judge's rationale behind it, I feel that he put too much emphasis on the mitigating circumstances. At the least[1]
factors against the gravity of the crime, and aggravating factors.
First time offense is definitely considered a mitigating factor, in all cases. But proper legal sentencing is a balance of mitigating[1]
legally correct. Which is far different from it being a completely balanced and fair sentence in light of modern circumstances.
Good points. I don't actually disagree that the sentence probably should have been different. My argument is merely that it was likely[1]
but the victim will not feel vindicated. This is often what ends up happening in the criminal justice system.
Victim wants the person to die for killing their family member. Court sentences them to a hefty prison sentence. Deterrence was satisfied[1]
Legally, no. Correction & Rehabilitation are equally weighted goals, legally, balanced against deterrence and mitigating factors.
However, it is worth noting that regardless of the prosecutions recommendations, the judge *can* opt to ignore the terms of the bargain.
You see this across the board. Very severe crimes will get light sentences, in light of mitigating factors and plea bargains.[1]
It will often vindicate the victim. But there are sub-systems like victim counselling in place to help victims. The courts aren't for that.
That's usually a part of deterrence, yes, which is to deter other *criminals* from committing the same crime. Not to vindicate the victim.
difference between a morally judgement, and a legal one. A correct legal judgement is founded on the judge's weighing of those principles.
Correction, Rehabilitation, Definition and Law Enforcement sometimes result in punishment (jail), but not always. That is exactly the[1]
So, no it's not fair to the victim, but the criminal justice system isn't *designed* to accommodate the victim.
And that's the difference between Moral and Legal definitions. Criminal Justice is centered around the criminal, not the victim[1]
It's worse than that. The criminal justice system would grind to a halt if every criminal was tried. It literally REQUIRES plea bargains.
but in Canada, there have been several attempts to revamp the criminal code that have more or less failed. Its likely similar in the states.
The law being outdated, and often not reflecting societal goals, is a something that is well understood. I'm not sure about America[1]
You are taking a moral standpoint, which is fine, I have the same moral standpoint. But the law deals with legal definitions not moral ones.
Vindication isn't part of the criminal justice system, is my exact point. "Correction and Rehabilitation" is one of the main goals.
the judge would pass such a light sentence. Often there is sound reasoning behind it even if I don't necessarily agree with the sentence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bko5GgK5v8&list=PLDNCCj46C34AgW7314tDcizn8qFcoENLO
Astartes. 5 part series on youtube.
Walt bleeds out in the last episode, correct.
Nope, although it is rare, the judge can go against the recommendations of the prosecution.
the person they felt was the least culpable and gave them a bargain, which included giving testimony etc. against the 'ringleaders'.
I really wonder if they needed one of them to flip on the others, as they were worried about the kidnapping etc. sticking so they chose[1]
I searched for the transcript of the case for a bit and couldn't readily find it, so I have no idea what the judge's rationale was.
he should have faced maximum county jail time, with a much longer probation. But he really should have went to federal (more than a year).
While I understand the judge's rationale behind it, I feel that he put too much emphasis on the mitigating circumstances. At the least[1]
factors against the gravity of the crime, and aggravating factors.
First time offense is definitely considered a mitigating factor, in all cases. But proper legal sentencing is a balance of mitigating[1]
legally correct. Which is far different from it being a completely balanced and fair sentence in light of modern circumstances.
Good points. I don't actually disagree that the sentence probably should have been different. My argument is merely that it was likely[1]
but the victim will not feel vindicated. This is often what ends up happening in the criminal justice system.
Victim wants the person to die for killing their family member. Court sentences them to a hefty prison sentence. Deterrence was satisfied[1]
Legally, no. Correction & Rehabilitation are equally weighted goals, legally, balanced against deterrence and mitigating factors.
However, it is worth noting that regardless of the prosecutions recommendations, the judge *can* opt to ignore the terms of the bargain.
You see this across the board. Very severe crimes will get light sentences, in light of mitigating factors and plea bargains.[1]
It will often vindicate the victim. But there are sub-systems like victim counselling in place to help victims. The courts aren't for that.
That's usually a part of deterrence, yes, which is to deter other *criminals* from committing the same crime. Not to vindicate the victim.
difference between a morally judgement, and a legal one. A correct legal judgement is founded on the judge's weighing of those principles.
Correction, Rehabilitation, Definition and Law Enforcement sometimes result in punishment (jail), but not always. That is exactly the[1]
So, no it's not fair to the victim, but the criminal justice system isn't *designed* to accommodate the victim.
And that's the difference between Moral and Legal definitions. Criminal Justice is centered around the criminal, not the victim[1]
It's worse than that. The criminal justice system would grind to a halt if every criminal was tried. It literally REQUIRES plea bargains.
but in Canada, there have been several attempts to revamp the criminal code that have more or less failed. Its likely similar in the states.
The law being outdated, and often not reflecting societal goals, is a something that is well understood. I'm not sure about America[1]
You are taking a moral standpoint, which is fine, I have the same moral standpoint. But the law deals with legal definitions not moral ones.
Vindication isn't part of the criminal justice system, is my exact point. "Correction and Rehabilitation" is one of the main goals.
the judge would pass such a light sentence. Often there is sound reasoning behind it even if I don't necessarily agree with the sentence.