The following is a quote from the Christian Science Monitor
In Gall v. US, a federal judge rejected the suggested guidelines sentence of three years in prison and instead sentenced Brian Gall to three years’ probation. Mr. Gall pleaded guilty to having helped distribute 10,000 tablets of the drug Ecstasy while a college student in Iowa in 2000. But the judge noted that Gall’s participation in the conspiracy lasted only a period of months when he was relatively young, and that in the four years since the end of his drug dealing, he had changed his life by no longer using drugs or alcohol, graduating from college, and running his own construction business. When confronted by federal agents years later about his alleged drug dealing as a student, Gall accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for his past actions. The judge’s sentence was overturned by a federal appeals court in St. Louis. The appeals court said probation was an unreasonable punishment in light of the seriousness of Gall’s prior drug dealing. The justices must decide whether the judge acted within his discretion to sentence Gall to probation, or whether such a departure from the suggested guidelines sentence requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
When people inadvertently break laws, what purpose does jail time serve? If government sponsored terrorism (jail time) is to have a controling effect, then people must know about the law before they are punished/terrorized. I didn’t think Ecstasy was a drug the use of which was punished. Consequently, it’s easy for me to understand how others would think the same.
What good does any punishment do? There is no evidence that punishment has any value. Lack of rewards is always the best disciplinary approach. Nobody has ever trained any animal with punishment, especially the human animal.
Dogs that bite are restrained by being put into cages. People that can’t be reformed should also be restrained.
Deprivation of rewards and restraint could still be considered punishment. Plausibly this why our bill of rights specifies that there shall be no “No cruel or unusual punishment”. Lack of rewards, restitution and restraint for the dog that won’t learn not to bite is not cruel or unusual punishment. Punishment to terrorize, is cruel and unusual. Word equivocation as a counter argument is not acceptable.
Our courts are making Zombies out of judges by having them follow tables of sentencing guidelines. Our courts are making Zombies out of judges by not having them consider what harm a loss a person has done or will do. Our courts are making Zombies out of judges if they don’t consider restraint and restitution as king of disciplines. Our courts are making Zombies out of judges if they want to simplify each case to a one line instruction. Our courts are making Zombies out of judges if they don’t allow perjured testimony to be appealed. Our courts are making Zombies out of judges if they don’t allow proportionate punishment, but favor disproportionate punishment instead. Our courts are making Zombies out of judges.