|
|
#63
12-16-2006, 09:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Zero tolerance policies
So, I guess that means you don't believe "mitigating" has any real meaning, right? Maybe it's just some random nonsense word in the dictionary? Is that your normal assumption when someone disagrees with you, that they don't understand the definition of a word you use? I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. Allowing for mitigating circumstances means allowing one person to make that judgment about them, in which case you may as well not have the policy at all and just give that person complete power to develop policies ad hoc as they see fit. It's time to grow up a little and get over the "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!" feeling here. Unfairness will happen if you allow for mitigating circumstances just as much as it will if you don't. It's just far easier to report examples of when it happens with a rigid policy in the news. This tends to lead the uninformed to the conclusion that it's the rigidity itself that's the problem. "Oh, oh, Zero Tolerance!!! I know just what I'm supposed to think about that! Let me me spew it up verbatim and have everyone pat me on the back for getting it right!" 
|
|
#64
12-16-2006, 10:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero tolerance policies
[ QUOTE ]
This tends to lead the uninformed to the conclusion that it's the rigidity itself that's the problem. [/ QUOTE ] So people who disagree with you are simply uninformed and rational thought should not be used instead of mindless zero thougt policies. Good to see we have such intolerant people in the world it makes us all safer.
|
|
#65
12-16-2006, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero tolerance policies
So people who disagree with you are simply uninformed and rational thought should not be used instead of mindless zero thougt policies. Good to see we have such intolerant people in the world it makes us all safer. So you like to ride unicorns in the cornfield? Good to see we have such intolerant people willing to ignore what's actually said and just insert some ready made comment they can argue against. Try not to run out of straw.
|
|
#66
12-16-2006, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero tolerance policies
[ QUOTE ]
Unfairness will happen if you allow for mitigating circumstances just as much as it will if you don't. [/ QUOTE ] On what do you base this presumption? My take is that unfairness may indeed happen both ways, but unfairness will happen more often by not allowing for mitigating circumstances to be considered than by allowing for such consideration. It is simply impossible to write punitive laws or rules that fairly cover all aspects. The kid finding the gun in school is a perfect example: there is NO choice that he could make that would be both responsible yet keep him out of trouble. How can such a Catch-22 be fair? It is completely unreasonable to punish the kid in this situation, as his only alternative to avoiding punishment under the "zero-tolerance" policy would have been to take an action that would be irresponsible and to allow the existence of such a hazard for a period of time. Another aspect of this is that it is worse to punish someone too severely than not to punish them severely enough. In a related vein, one guilty person escaping punishment is not as bad an occurrence as one innocent person being wrongly punished. America's prisons are overbloated with people sentenced under mandatory minimums for drug offenses--often they are merely just users. Is that justice? No way. Also, a policy of allowing consideration of mitigating circumstances does not imply that only one person makes the decision. The judgment could be made by a jury, committee, or group--there is no reason that allowing consideration of mitigating circumstances transfers the ultimate decision to just one person.
|
|
#67
12-16-2006, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero tolerance policies
The kid finding the gun in school is a perfect example: there is NO choice that he could make that would be both responsible yet keep him out of trouble. Hoew can such a Catch-22 be fair? No choice but leaving it there and telling a staff member about it, you mean? You aren't really implying that his choices were: 1. Pick the gun up and walk around with it for 15 minutes. and 2. Do nothing. are you? Please tell me you aren't. America's prisons are overbloated with people sentenced under mandatory minimums for drug offenses--often they are merely just users. Is that justice? No way. YES. You make think it's a set of stupid laws. I do too. However, having the law in place, violating the law and knowing the consequences, and then bitching about the consequences doesn't make the law unjust. Now, if you want to talk about specific examples of sentencing schemes that really were unjust like pre Booker federal mandatory sentences, we can do that, but having a law with a punishment that you happen to dislike doesn't make it unjust.
|
|
#68
12-16-2006, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero tolerance policies
[ QUOTE ]
The kid finding the gun in school is a perfect example: there is NO choice that he could make that would be both responsible yet keep him out of trouble. Hoew can such a Catch-22 be fair? No choice but leaving it there and telling a staff member about it, you mean? [/ QUOTE ] That wouldn't be responsible either, as someone could pick it up in the meantime. [ QUOTE ] America's prisons are overbloated with people sentenced under mandatory minimums for drug offenses--often they are merely just users. Is that justice? No way. YES. You make think it's a set of stupid laws. I do too. However, having the law in place, violating the law and knowing the consequences, and then bitching about the consequences doesn't make the law unjust. Now, if you want to talk about specific examples of sentencing schemes that really were unjust like pre Booker federal mandatory sentences, we can do that, but having a law with a punishment that you happen to dislike doesn't make it unjust. [/ QUOTE ] Not allowing for mitigating circumstances is especially unfair in victimless crimes. Zero-tolerance-no-mitigating-circumstances-allowed would result in the following: For speeding: you are trying to get your wife to the hospital before she has birth. Sorry, no mitigating circumstances, you were doing 45 in a 30 zone. No matter that it was 3:00 AM and no cars in sight and no traffic hazard. For jaywalking: an aggressive dog has been following you. Sorry, you cannot use that as an excuse. Open alcohol container in a vehicle (in some states): your out-of-state friend just opened it and you told him that is a no-no in this state and you pull over to a rest area with trash can. Cop sees him getting out with the beer and heading to the trash bin. You get the ticket. Absurd enough for you? Your seatbelt broke this morning, it is jammed and you can't use it. You get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. There are more serious examples with much worse penalties but those are the first few that spring to mind. Not allowing consideration of mitigating circumstances combined with a zero tolerance policy is the same as not allowing common sense.
|
|
#69
12-16-2006, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zero tolerance policies
These rules remove any real opportunity for considered opinion and appeal to the facts in exchange for bulletproof decisions no lawyer can crack. Wasn't a compelling argument the first time. Still isn't.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
