Posted on 03/27/2009 7:46:44 AM PDT by WayneLusvardi
>Cognitive dissonance is paradoxically to have one’s beliefs get stronger despite contradictory evidence. “I refuse to have my idealism mugged by reality.”
Like a friend of mine who thinks that the USSC/courts will rule that the retroactive, punitive onerous taxation is unjust/unconstitutional? {On eight points, according to my count: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dv698tm_22dr6x3nfb }
Do I trust ANY of the three branches to do what is right. No. I do not.
Courts infused with compassion instead of justice, won’t be just.
Leviticus 19:5 — do not be partial in justice to the poor or the rich. Be fair. I find it interesting that ministries sprang up to encourage debt (a mortgage) when the Bible says that debt is slavery. Proverbs 22:7
I disagree with you that it was a miscarriage of justice not to charge someone that was in an auto accident with a fatality, who was BELOW the legal limit for alcohol, with murder. I think that people that are ABOVE the legal limit should not be charged with manslaughter when the passneger assumed the risk (knew that the driver had been drinking). I knew a young construction worker that went out bar hopping with a friend, got drunk, got in an accident driving home, his friend died, he ended up in the hospital for months and then convicted for his friends death. He was negligent . . . but so was the ‘victim’ (his drinking buddy). Seems a waste to jail him for 6 years.
>Courts infused with compassion instead of justice, won’t be just.
Indeed. And “social justice” without Justice, is just ‘social’.
Rapist is intentional crime. Auto accident is an accident. One is a criminal, deciding to do harm. One is guy out for beers with a coworker.
Also, your idea that prosecutors should have no discretion in prosecution is something you should reconsider. You say that the mitigating circumstances should be considered at sentencing but not in deciding to prosecute. If prosecutors didn’t have discretion they would prosecute every case brought to them by anyone. It would be a waste of time, further overburden the courts, and end up in unjust outcomes. Lawn not mowed and neighbors complain? Convict him of creating a hazardous fire environment within city limits (or whatever bogus laws would apply to such a thing). Under the legal limit for alcohol but you missed a stop sign? Murder conviction. Etc.
This hang-em-high stuff can go too far. Prosecutors have to use their common sense . . . and compassion.
That is precisely why I picked the “gray” case of someone who would evoke our sympathy rather than a clear cut case of premeditated murder to write about.
There was a Navy jet crash in San Diego recently. The plane malfunctioned but the air controllers botched the handling of the pilot. Should we feel compassion for them?
Justice is blind. And without blind justice there is no opportunity for true compassion.
Are you going to jail the air traffic controllers for murder in your just world?
It is not murder, it is manslaughter. Look it up.
Charging who with manslaughter? An air traffic controller that made a mistake? That sounds goofy — should we start charging surgeons with manslaughter if they are negligent? Are you so sure that you, or your children, or your grandchildren will never make a mistake? Your friends and family — error free!
Yes I think where you want to go is a new and worse place than where we are. You want all negligence that ends in death to lead to criminal charges. Prosecutors have the discretion not to charge and should exercise it. I don’t think that you are a lawyer from the level of your comments and understanding.
The title should be WHITHER the Compassion Bubble.
The U.S. Navy sanctioned the air controllers for their negligent actions. Let me reverse this: you would do nothing? No accountability at all?
I don't think you have educated yourself enough regarding prosecutorial discretion, its history and purpose, use and abuse, to waste your own time, or mine, discussing it.
Now, grasshopper, you are making progress. Do all "sanctions" stem from criminal prosecution? When should a prosecutor move forward and when shouldn't they? What basis for their decision is appropriate? If the prosecutors did not make the decision to prosecute, who would you have make the decision? The police? The community in a vote? A judge? Etc.
Remember that there are civil lawsuits as well as criminal and civil law handles most negligence, not criminal. I don't think you have much understanding to be spouting off in a column about it. My advice, take it or leave it, is to write about stuff that you know about.
First you tossed out a argument based on emotion. When you were called on it you tossed up some straw men to try and reverse and deflect accusations. Finally when cornered you are trying to play the ‘I know more than you’ card while throwing out random question while not actually countering any of the opposing comments or even defending your original statments. You know what? I am done here. Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.