…
An effective criminal justice system—one that holds people accountable for harmful conduct—cannot be sustained when there are boundless excuses for violent behavior and no moral authority for the state to punish. If people know that they are not going to be held accountable because of a myriad of excuses, how will our society be able to influence behavior and provide incentives to follow the law? How can we teach future generations right from wrong if the idea of criminal responsibility is riddled with exceptions and our governing institutions and courts lack moral self-confidence? A society that does not hold someone accountable for harmful behavior can be viewed as condoning, even endorsing, such conduct. In the long run, a society that abandons personal responsibility will lose its moral sense, destroying, above all, the lives of the urban poor.

I can give counter-examples, but anecdotes are not data from either perspective.

Are you THAT obtuse?

Apparently, you are.

Of course I don’t mean they were both discussing the same thing entirely. I mean that, it sounds like (by your description, anyway) when Moloney was discussing “justice,” what he was actually discussing was the same thing Sowell meant when Sowell was discussing “cosmic justice.”

No stats, just rough personal observation (and the admission of one Th. Perez, once our odious Secretary of Labor.

Any stats to back up this kernel of profundity and wisdom?

“People go to law school because they’re bad at math.”

Moloney wasn’t discussing social policy or the historical evolution of social problems, which is a concern of Sowell’s.

They’re not trustworthy, which is why legislatures take discretion away from them. The problem with three strikes laws is that they’re crude. The objects of these laws can be achieved with properly constructed sentencing formulae, but the laws are written by lawyers. People go to law school because they’re bad at math.

And I did not say that his article was a riff on Sowell’s work. I am assuming it is not, actually. However, they are both discussing the same thing, it sounds like, in different ways.

That’s your opinion, but our legal system is based on the idea that mitigating circumstances (that is, mercy) can enter into it in the sentencing phase, which is quite separate from the verdict. Without it, justice would be untempered by mercy, and something like the problems of the three strikes rule would ensue in many cases. Judges have discretion, and they should. They are not meant to be automatons. The legal system is administered by human beings.

The other’s in a much nicer setting. See the photos at the top of the page.