I'll never understand the sentiment that believes what we, as a society do with such a perpetrator should be based on what we think he will learn.
Well, that's just the age old dilemma between retribution and rehabilitation, right? Its been argued for at least 3000 years, and there's no sign that its going to be agreed upon by consensus in the foreseeable future. Better to just accept that some people consider the purpose of a legal sentence to be punishment for the crime and others see it as a means to try to prevent the offender from doing it again. Still others think that it should be a mixture of the two, with varying levels of emphasis. But the room to disagree doesn't even end there ... we can rapidly get into the same kinds of moral quandries that perplexed the egyptians, greeks and romans (among others): does it punish a rich man more to lock him up or take away his wealth, or should we do both?
There's no point pretending that there are any easy answers to these questions. Still, what is so offensive about the DA's actual justification is the implication that he would have pressed on for felony charges if the accused was less well off and/or did some other kind of job. There's still plenty of moral grey zone in there, but I think that at the core of that distinction is something that most people find at best unsettling and at worst reprehensible.
Well, that's just the age old dilemma between retribution and rehabilitation, right? Its been argued for at least 3000 years, and there's no sign that its going to be agreed upon by consensus in the foreseeable future. Better to just accept that some people consider the purpose of a legal sentence to be punishment for the crime and others see it as a means to try to prevent the offender from doing it again. Still others think that it should be a mixture of the two, with varying levels of emphasis. But the room to disagree doesn't even end there ... we can rapidly get into the same kinds of moral quandries that perplexed the egyptians, greeks and romans (among others): does it punish a rich man more to lock him up or take away his wealth, or should we do both?
There's no point pretending that there are any easy answers to these questions. Still, what is so offensive about the DA's actual justification is the implication that he would have pressed on for felony charges if the accused was less well off and/or did some other kind of job. There's still plenty of moral grey zone in there, but I think that at the core of that distinction is something that most people find at best unsettling and at worst reprehensible.