Does this make any sense to anyone?

[pm01]

To add to Spider's comment....when convicted of a crime a judge will refer to sentencing guidelines. In a case where the sentencing guideline lists, say 3 to 5 years, the reason some people are sentenced to 3 and some to 5 years are circumstances.

[r.payton@att.net]

For a first non violent offense a judge may issue (in Indiana ) shock probation where the person goes through the system then is kicked loose after a day or two.Shock probation was implemented to counter act the idiotic MANDATORY sentencing rules .

[ban basketball]

Equal and fair aren't always the same thing. If they were, you wouldn't need to include both in your strange motto.

I'm being sarcastic, but what I mean to say is that consideration or extenuating circumstances may lead to fairer justice, although it might not appear to be strictly equal.

Equal and fair treatment under the law. Unless I'm missing something, those are basic ideals of our justice system, right?

[ban basketball]

To add to Spider's comment....when convicted of a crime a judge will refer to sentencing guidelines. In a case where the sentencing guideline lists, say 3 to 5 years, the reason some people are sentenced to 3 and some to 5 years are circumstances.

I understand that probably all too well, which is precisely why I asked the initial question that I asked of people on here: would we feel the same outrage for the student who wasn't as seemingly "upstanding" as the one described in the article?

[Spider]

Equal and fair treatment under the law. Unless I'm missing something, those are basic ideals of our justice system, right?

Equal is not always fair and fair is not always equal. If everyone had a hand cut off for shoplifting, that would be equal, but not fair. If first time offenders are given probation for a crime, but chronic offenders are given jail time, that would be fair but not equal. My point is that every offense must be considered on an individual basis and not simply placed into a particular category with a given punishment, and guilt or innocence can be a matter of degree, not just a an either/or proposition.

[ban basketball]

Equal is not always fair and fair is not always equal. If everyone had a hand cut off for shoplifting, that would be equal, but not fair. If first time offenders are given probation for a crime, but chronic offenders are given jail time, that would be fair but not equal. My point is that every offense must be considered on an individual basis and not simply placed into a particular category with a given punishment, and guilt or innocence can be a matter of degree, not just a an either/or proposition.

What I'm arguing (actually, it isn't even debatable) isn't this complicated: equality under/before the law, and fair treatment under/before the law. In short, this is due process, and differential sentencing, based upon one's social characteristics, is problematic in a system that legally disallows such unfair treatment.

[Spider]

What I'm arguing (actually, it isn't even debatable) isn't this complicated: equality under/before the law, and fair treatment under/before the law. In short, this is due process, and differential sentencing, based upon one's social characteristics, is problematic in a system that legally disallows such unfair treatment.

If you mean that the poor and minorities are entitiled to the same consideration as everyone else, I certainly can't disagree, but does it apply to the case that began this thread? If you are implying that the girl's dedication to her studies and outside family responsibilities shouldn't be considered because they are social characteristics, then I don't agree. This is a case where strictly equal may not be fair.

[ban basketball]

If you mean that the poor and minorities are entitiled to the same consideration as everyone else, I certainly can't disagree, but does it apply to the case that began this thread? If you are implying that the girl's dedication to her studies and outside family responsibilities shouldn't be considered because they are social characteristics, then I don't agree. This is a case where strictly equal may not be fair.

Here is where I will qualify my statement: I am not an attorney, nor do I try to ever play one on the internet. With that said, my knowledge in this area may become very limited. I can onlu speak with "expertise" as an educator, where we have two responsibilites: do what we are required to do by law, and treat everyone and every situation equally.

Let's use the example of the student in question in the article, as well as my fictional example of a student who has also been referred to the court for truancy, but is not considered as "upstanding" as the former student is (doesn't work, doesn't have big family responsibilities, doesn't get good grades, etc). In both cases, isn't all that is before this court is that there are two repeat "offenders" who have been referred to the legal system? If that is the case, is it that court's job to then begin to "pick and choose" between two identical repeat "offenders?"

In both cases, all that is in question is their truancy, both are repeat offenders, and everything that went into that truancy, I would hope, is null and void. Correct? If you have someone who is truant that many times, obviously, we are not talking about isolated incidents or circumstances at that point. That is why I believe that nothing else should be considered in these cases.

If I think of it, I'll ask my boss, who is an attorney, and maybe he can enlighten me in this case.

[Spider]

Let's use the example of the student in question in the article, as well as my fictional example of a student who has also been referred to the court for truancy, but is not considered as "upstanding" as the former student is (doesn't work, doesn't have big family responsibilities, doesn't get good grades, etc). In both cases, isn't all that is before this court is that there are two repeat "offenders" who have been referred to the legal system? If that is the case, is it that court's job to then begin to "pick and choose" between two identical repeat "offenders?"

In both cases, all that is in question is their truancy, both are repeat offenders, and everything that went into that truancy, I would hope, is null and void. Correct? If you have someone who is truant that many times, obviously, we are not talking about isolated incidents or circumstances at that point. That is why I believe that nothing else should be considered in these cases.

This is where we differ. I believe that it is crucial to consider the circumstances surrounding the offense in order to make a fair judgement. I'm not a lawyer either, but when I become Emperor, this is how the justice system will work.