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

[PDH]

I am in favor of a judicial system that gives the Honored Men an easier time, since their service to the state ensure that the traditions of the Republic last and that the Senate remains powerful and able.

The people, that vile and wretched mass, must be handed draconian sentencing whenever possible, their lands taken from them, and their children made slaves.

[Barrister]

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.

Isn't that then an incentive to run?

[Agelastus]

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.

Isn't that then an incentive to run?

I assume you mean that the implied uncertainty of the level of punishment, if it depends on the opinion of the judge as much as on legislation, acts as the incentive to run? I haven't really noticed this in the UK where judges quite clearly use their own discretion and judgement in many cases. Our law seems to allow a judge a great deal of leeway, even if sentencing guidelines have been tightened up recently.

[Neil]

Yes.  And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.

[Jaron]

Look at those sweet, innocent faces!

[garbon]

Yes.  And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.

Again? They helped to encourage gay activism.

[Neil]

Yes.  And Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney should have been given suspended sentences, on account of the fact that their service to society was much greater than their crime.

Again? They helped to encourage gay activism.

They killed a homosexual.  That's a service to society.

[Eddie Teach]

Plus, gay activism helps Neil compile his proscription list.

[garbon]

Plus, gay activism helps Neil compile his proscription list.

I'm honored.

[MadImmortalMan]

Meh. I think society ought to punish offenses on their own merit without taking into account any extra factors like what the accused does for a living, has accomplished in his life or what the motives are/were.

[MadImmortalMan]

Meh. I think society ought to punish offenses on their own merit without taking into account any extra factors like what the accused does for a living, has accomplished in his life or what the motives are/were.

Perhaps I should elaborate. I think the point defining the line of criminal activity and punishing those who cross it is society's way of delineating what behavior is acceptable and which is not. Punishment is society's deterrent against unacceptable behavior. If certain crimes are punished differently depending on the motive or the circumstances of the life of the accused, then justice goes out the window in favor of interest.

Now, there's nothing wrong per se with a court deciding based on interest in some things, particularly civil cases where the interest of society is judged against other interests or the onterest of a victim vs that of an attacker. But in a criminal case the interest of society can very well be in opposition to justice. So interest isn't a valid way to sentence a criminal case in my mind. For example, an interest of society is to discourage racism. But if society sentences racially-motivated murder more harshly than other murders in order to promote that interest, it is placing the value of the lives of the victims of non-racially-motivated murder victims at a lower value than those of racially-motivated ones. It's unjust.

Society may have an interest in not incarcerating a very rich person because he pays a lot of money into the public coffers in taxes every year. That value may be far more than the value to society of any single person. So, should the very wealthy man be allowed to commit murder as long as his victim contributes less to society than he does? That's where it all goes in the end.

Staying with murder as the example: The message from the law should be that murder is always unacceptable. There should be no caveats. When you add in factors like a person's contribution or whatever, the message becomes "murder is always unacceptable, but it's less bad if you murder person A, B or C than if you murder person X, Y or Z." Or, "It's less bad if you murder for reasons A, B or C than if you do it for reason X".

I can't see a moral way to justify it.

[Martinus]

I am in favor of a judicial system that gives the Honored Men an easier time, since their service to the state ensure that the traditions of the Republic last and that the Senate remains powerful and able.

The people, that vile and wretched mass, must be handed draconian sentencing whenever possible, their lands taken from them, and their children made slaves.

See, I knew we will see eye-to-eye on this issue. Just as your idea to kill off the poor, this is quite reasonable.

[Monoriu]

I don't think we should let rich and famous folks buy a jail free card with their wealth and fame.

[Martinus]

If certain crimes are punished differently depending on the motive or the circumstances of the life of the accused, then justice goes out the window in favor of interest.

Err, I am not sure whether you were trying to say something else here, but the motive plays a fundamental role in determining both the guilt of the accused and the gravity of the crime (and thus the sentence). 

[Martinus]

Meh. I think society ought to punish offenses on their own merit without taking into account any extra factors like what the accused does for a living, has accomplished in his life or what the motives are/were.

Perhaps I should elaborate. I think the point defining the line of criminal activity and punishing those who cross it is society's way of delineating what behavior is acceptable and which is not. Punishment is society's deterrent against unacceptable behavior. If certain crimes are punished differently depending on the motive or the circumstances of the life of the accused, then justice goes out the window in favor of interest.

Now, there's nothing wrong per se with a court deciding based on interest in some things, particularly civil cases where the interest of society is judged against other interests or the onterest of a victim vs that of an attacker. But in a criminal case the interest of society can very well be in opposition to justice. So interest isn't a valid way to sentence a criminal case in my mind. For example, an interest of society is to discourage racism. But if society sentences racially-motivated murder more harshly than other murders in order to promote that interest, it is placing the value of the lives of the victims of non-racially-motivated murder victims at a lower value than those of racially-motivated ones. It's unjust.

Society may have an interest in not incarcerating a very rich person because he pays a lot of money into the public coffers in taxes every year. That value may be far more than the value to society of any single person. So, should the very wealthy man be allowed to commit murder as long as his victim contributes less to society than he does? That's where it all goes in the end.

Staying with murder as the example: The message from the law should be that murder is always unacceptable. There should be no caveats. When you add in factors like a person's contribution or whatever, the message becomes "murder is always unacceptable, but it's less bad if you murder person A, B or C than if you murder person X, Y or Z." Or, "It's less bad if you murder for reasons A, B or C than if you do it for reason X".

I can't see a moral way to justify it.

Notwithstanding your bizarre statement about motives playing no role (any lawyer will tell you that it's empathically not the case in any Western legal system), I think you missed the part where I said this reasoning would apply to only certain types of crimes, especially victimless crimes.

So arguing against it by using murder as an example is a strawman.