Justice, even in this vale of tears, can be an exceedingly slow and uncertain process. The sentence for Mr Bates of Downton Abbey came soon after the jury found him guilty. Why can't we do the same?
Surely the judge has heard the same evidence as the jury. Why shouldn't he or she sentence the defendant immediately? Mitigating factors are always brought up during the trial, are they not? So what is the delay for? And why should we commoners have to put up with harassing the poor convicted criminal for 20 years?
And isn't a delay of 20 years a form of "cruel and unusual punishment?" Or so it seems to me. Where have I gone wrong?
This is a small experiment in the blogosphere. "If you have no interest in what it's like to grow old, what follows is not for you. However, if it's going to happen to you, and the outcome is ultimately going to be negative, then finding a way to make the process as bearable, even as enjoyable as possible, might be worth a little attention."—from John Jerome's On Turning Sixty-Five
29 February 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment