|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Oh geez. There is no possible justice here. | by Havoc | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Assault with a deadly weapon | by notdeadyet | 2006-01-24 08:49:23 |
|
Your use of capitals has convinced me. (n/t) | by Esteis | 2006-01-24 08:54:17 |
|
Ah, sarcasm :) | by notdeadyet | 2006-01-24 09:10:38 |
|
:-) | by Esteis | 2006-01-24 09:14:01 |
|
Deterrance is a basic point of punishment. | by esbita | 2006-01-24 09:28:16 |
|
Yeah, I know that much. But in this case, | by Esteis | 2006-01-24 09:44:21 |
| Three points of legal consequences: |
by jdelphiki |
2006-01-24 11:28:20 |
1. Punishment for wrongdoing.
2. Deterrence of other potential wrongdoers.
3. Justice for victims/society.
Points 1 & 2 kind of fit together. The punishment is supposed to be the deterrent factor. It also has to be applied or the deterrence has no chance of being attained.
Points 1 & 3 also fit together. Society (or the victims) do not see fair justice when the perpetrator of a crime does not face some level of consequences for their actions.
The catch is that there has to be some level of balance between the competing/complementing facets of these points. Too much of one or not enough of another will result in a legal system that doesn't work, offering either no deterrence for potential lawbreakers, no sense of justice for the victims/society, or inordinately harsh/unfair punishment for the prisoners.
In this case, the punishment may seem unfair for a guy who made a stupid, thoughtless mistake, but in light of the need for justice and the hope that his sentence might inspire the next goofball to think twice before pulling a similar prank, it may be the best solution they can come up with. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Usually there is one more factor. | by Peace_man | 2006-01-24 12:29:30 |
|
Yep. That's a factor, too. | by jdelphiki | 2006-01-24 12:51:35 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
