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.
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
Invite your friend via email:
click for template
Click the @ to see full topic's discussion.
Be first to reply!
For new reply notification