Sometimes mercy is the smarter choice even at a utilitarian level. Someday maybe we'll figure out that we can't cruelty our way out of every social problem.
The prosecution had it's opportunity to convince the judge that a penitentiary sentence was needed. The prosecution's argument was rejected by the Court and the judge imposed an appropriate sentence based on the law and the facts presented at sentencing. The prosecution's failure to convince the judge that a stiffer sentence was necessary should not be the basis for either criticism of the sentence imposed by the judge or of the laws passed by the legislature.
Good article. Society diverting much needed funds to house prisoners while simultaneously depriving them of liberty should only be done when it is productive and reasonably necessary to do so. Like Mr. Kolbeck infers, it makes little sense to think with our spleens and give sentences that make good people into bad ones and then release them back into society if, based on who that person is, they have the potential to be changed through a guided probationary process. The decision to imprison should only be made after careful consideration of society's need for protection taking into account the evidence of what the person's past and present shows of their potential to be an ongoing risk to the public and the liklihood they will be a good citizen going forward. We as a society should desire to rise above being both bleeding hearts and revengeful punitive animals. One size simply does not fit all. A rebuttable presumption of probation fits well with a just society. I for one would prefer to see taxes generally minimized instead of paying for someone else's "get tough on crime/one size fits all" rhetoric. Bottom line: some people need to be imprisoned whereas others don't. Presumptive probation is a good judicial mechanism for sorting them out.
Sometimes mercy is the smarter choice even at a utilitarian level. Someday maybe we'll figure out that we can't cruelty our way out of every social problem.
Great points Mr. Kolbeck.
The prosecution had it's opportunity to convince the judge that a penitentiary sentence was needed. The prosecution's argument was rejected by the Court and the judge imposed an appropriate sentence based on the law and the facts presented at sentencing. The prosecution's failure to convince the judge that a stiffer sentence was necessary should not be the basis for either criticism of the sentence imposed by the judge or of the laws passed by the legislature.
Good article. Society diverting much needed funds to house prisoners while simultaneously depriving them of liberty should only be done when it is productive and reasonably necessary to do so. Like Mr. Kolbeck infers, it makes little sense to think with our spleens and give sentences that make good people into bad ones and then release them back into society if, based on who that person is, they have the potential to be changed through a guided probationary process. The decision to imprison should only be made after careful consideration of society's need for protection taking into account the evidence of what the person's past and present shows of their potential to be an ongoing risk to the public and the liklihood they will be a good citizen going forward. We as a society should desire to rise above being both bleeding hearts and revengeful punitive animals. One size simply does not fit all. A rebuttable presumption of probation fits well with a just society. I for one would prefer to see taxes generally minimized instead of paying for someone else's "get tough on crime/one size fits all" rhetoric. Bottom line: some people need to be imprisoned whereas others don't. Presumptive probation is a good judicial mechanism for sorting them out.
What role could mental health court have had in this case?