Should a person's contribution to the society play a role in sentencing?

[Ed Anger]

Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.

[Mr.Penguin]

Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.

Have you made any good movies?, if not, no...

[Josquius]

It'd only really be a question in some tiny society of a few hundred people where you have just the one doctor or whatnot. In the world at large- no.

[Ed Anger]

Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.

Have you made any good movies?, if not, no...

My movies are unreleased.

[Mr.Penguin]

Since I have helped feed the poor, I should be able to enslave some to work on the strawberry farm.

Have you made any good movies?, if not, no...

My movies are unreleased.

To bad, I am sure that the world and human kind is missing out on some big...

Besides why slaves, dont you know that tenant workers are the new big thing, so much more easy to handel. Ofcourse if you do like useing the whip, then slaves are definitely the way to go...

[Ed Anger]

Dan White should be honored and given a holiday to remember his heroism.

[Eddie Teach]

Hmmm, so you're saying if a person is, say, President of the United States, and he perjures himself he should get a lesser sentence than a regular schmuck? Maybe you're onto something here...

[Iormlund]

It shouldn't, no. But the pragmatist in me would pardon those valuable to society anyway. Or if too dangerous put them to work in captivity for perks.

[Barrister]

So, the Polanski thread inspired me to start this one - now, as a caveat, I don't think statutory rape is a case where this question would apply, but are you, at least in principle, willing to concede that there are certain crimes for which someone who has been contributing a lot to the society should receive a lighter penalty than your average Joe?

I think the best example would be victimless crimes. These crimes are penalized not because they cause harm to some victim (in which case there would be an element of justice and retribution that we couldn't just ignore) but because whoever makes the law decides they are harmful to the society. However, obviously, by removing a person committing such a crime from the society (via an imprisonment, a disgrace of criminal sentence or, in the most extreme case, death penalty) we may be depriving the society of contributions such person could have otherwise made, and as a result causing more harm to the society than if we let the person go.

Ethically I don't think you can justify that.  How can we punish someone more harshly than someone else because they make more contributions to society?

But I think there is a real issue here - when the time between the offence and the sentencing is quite separate, do we sentence the offender as they are now, or as they were at the time? 

Our office has a a similar issue on appeal.  I man was charged with drunk driving, and he had a bad record for drunk driving.  But he was "on the lam" for almost 10 years.  By the time he was caught he had stopped drinking and become a much more productive member of society.  It was generally agreed that if he had been sentenced right at the time he would have gone to jail for a considerable length of time.  But should he still get a lengthy sentence now given the steps he had taken to clean himself up?

Just declined to give the sentence he would have gotten at the time.  We have appealed.

[garbon]

Dan White should be honored and given a holiday to remember his heroism.

For what? Helping to encourage gay activism?

[Ed Anger]

Dan White should be honored and given a holiday to remember his heroism.

For what? Helping to encourage gay activism?

I was trolling. 

But I doubt Marti knows who he is anyways, so I was wasting my time.

[garbon]

I was trolling. 

But I doubt Marti knows who he is anyways, so I was wasting my time.

Yeah, I just figured that you trolling choice was poor because of his legacy.

Anyway, Mart knows who he is. Why he's only seen Milk about a hundred times!

[Razgovory]

I imagine Marty fantasies he's one of those important people with significant contribution.

[Jaron]

The answer to the question is yes..and no.

It comes down to the nature of one's character.

If one serves the community in good standing for many years and has a slip up, there may be room for leniency. If for example a well beloved police officer with 30 years of service loses his cool and punches out someones car window after being cut off, it will likely be viewed less severely than someone who is an established threat to the community.

However, in a case like R. Polanski's there can be no wiggle room. A brutal, horrendous rape that shatters the innocence and youth of a child ? No mercy.

[Agelastus]

Ethically I don't think you can justify that.  How can we punish someone more harshly than someone else because they make more contributions to society?

But I think there is a real issue here - when the time between the offence and the sentencing is quite separate, do we sentence the offender as they are now, or as they were at the time? 

Our office has a a similar issue on appeal.  I man was charged with drunk driving, and he had a bad record for drunk driving.  But he was "on the lam" for almost 10 years.  By the time he was caught he had stopped drinking and become a much more productive member of society.  It was generally agreed that if he had been sentenced right at the time he would have gone to jail for a considerable length of time.  But should he still get a lengthy sentence now given the steps he had taken to clean himself up?

Just declined to give the sentence he would have gotten at the time.  We have appealed.

In the above case I, as a bystander, would say that his efforts over the last ten years should count in his favour - in fact, it seem the fear of jail has actually served its' purpose here, as a deterrent encouraging reform.

It's a shame that it did not work until it got to the point where he would actually be sent to jail, he knew it, and he decided he had no choice but to go "on the lam" and reform.

On the other hand, where does this stop - do I excuse a heart surgeon for drink driving, but say that a factory worker should go to jail? Should I excuse the factory worker if he is supporting a family and send the heart surgeon to jail if he has no dependants?

I am glad I am not a judge, who, whatever the law says, make these judgements a lot of the time.