There's no conflict between processing facts and arguments impartially, and being appalled by the eventual conclusion. I don't think the judge's comments during sentencing imply that he was impartial during the trial. The outrageousness of a crime (or lack thereof) shouldn't influence the determination of a person's guilt, but I think it's completely appropriate that it influence the sentencing. In fact, this is one reason I think Three Strikes laws are bad, because they hamper the ability of judges to consider the circumstances of the third offense while passing sentence.
1 vote
Jun 9, 2015
Reply to this opinion
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
@
click for template
OR
Share it:
Share this opinion via OpiWiki smartlink:
OR
Opinion's page
Click the @ to see full topic's discussion.
Status:
Active
Replies:
Be first to reply!
subscribe
For new reply notification
Voting
(42 votes)