mcb
The Living Force
Laura said:Yeah, what is UP with that post-modernist test vagueness BS???
Well, with this particular test, maybe the vagueness is part of the test. RWAs like their information in simple, crisp, black and white.
Laura said:Yeah, what is UP with that post-modernist test vagueness BS???
You are a judge presiding at the trial of “The People vs. Robert Smith.” Evidence introduced in
court indicates that on the evening of May 23rd, a Mr. Matthew Burns (a 47-year-old, Caucasian
accountant) was walking to his car in a hotel parking lot when he was stopped by a man who produced
a pistol and demanded Mr. Burns’ wallet. Mr. Burns complied, but as the robber ran from the scene Mr.
Burns ducked into a doorway and began shouting “Stop that man!”
These cries were heard by a policeman cruising nearby in a patrol car who after a short chase
apprehended a Mr. Robert Smith, (a 28-year-old Caucasian of no fixed address or occupation). The
police officer saw Mr. Smith throw what proved to be Mr. Burns’ wallet down a sewer as he was being
pursued. Smith matched the general description Mr. Burns gave of his assailant, but Mr. Burns was
unable to identify Smith “with absolute certainty” because it was dark in the parking lot at the time of the
robbery.
Smith told the court he saw another man running from the parking lot, and then he found the
wallet. He began to run after picking up the wallet because he heard the police siren and realized how
incriminating the circumstances were. That was also, according to Smith, the reason he threw the wallet
down the sewer.
Smith has a record of two previous “mugging” arrests and one prior conviction. He was found
guilty of robbing Mr. Burns by the jury, and it is your duty now to declare sentence. A second conviction
of armed robbery of this sort is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, with parole possible after
1/3 of the sentence has been served.
When asked if he had anything to say before being sentenced, Smith said again that he was
innocent. What sentence would you give?
Many factors would undoubtedly shape someone’s decision in this matter, even
if s/he were just filling out a booklet of surveys and was suddenly asked to imagine
being a judge. But such role-playing does create a situation in which someone can
imagine punishing someone else in the name of established authority. I’d give Smith
about four or five years of further experience with the penitentiary system, and
overall, subjects answering my survey would impose an average sentence of about
3.5 years. But right-wing authoritarians would send Robert Smith to the slammer for
a significantly longer time than most people would.
Richard said:What I find interesting is that the author would give Smith a sentence based not upon guilt alone but also upon the lack of absolute proof. There is the wildest chance that Smith is innocent. In this case the probability of guilt is high but there is no absolute proof so the evidence is circumstantial. Because the proof is circumstantial, Smith is given a lighter sentence. I can't countenance that. Either someone is guilty or they're not. We can't go around pointing fingers and saying "Look there's a good chance he did the deed, but even though we're not sure we're going to lock him up anyways. Just in case he didn't do it we'll make the sentence lighter"
Thoughts?
Richard said:What I find interesting is that the author would give Smith a sentence based not upon guilt alone but also upon the lack of absolute proof. There is the wildest chance that Smith is innocent. In this case the probability of guilt is high but there is no absolute proof so the evidence is circumstantial. Because the proof is circumstantial, Smith is given a lighter sentence. I can't countenance that. Either someone is guilty or they're not. We can't go around pointing fingers and saying "Look there's a good chance he did the deed, but even though we're not sure we're going to lock him up anyways. Just in case he didn't do it we'll make the sentence lighter"
Thoughts?
Richard said:I'm glad I'm neither part of the jury nor the judge.
In this case my interest is not about the issue of guilt but about the determination of the sentence.
It seems the author is happy to lessen the sentence because of the lack of pure proof of guilt. I don't understand how this should enter consideration. If Smith is found guilty he should be sentenced to a term reflecting the deed itself and that he has a prior conviction (an arrest where found not guilty should not enter the equation), and not according to the "strength" of the case against him.
Talking about how psychopaths or criminals in general avoid prosecution, I'm always amazed by the question of admissible evidence. Surely evidence is evidence? Surely the judge and jury can decide how much of a factor all the evidence in a case applies? By denying evidence, for or against, surely the best decision is made less possible?
engagedinattempting said:...But I've worked in prisons. This hardens many people and maybe hardened me too, to some degree. But the experience really made me a believer in the Blackstone quote, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"...