1 vote
Jun 9, 2015

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.

Reply to this opinion
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
Invite your friend via email:
Share it: