|
![]() |
|
Click to unhide all tags.
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#7 |
Archer and Armstrong vs. the World
|
![]()
Extenuating circumstances is what is the problem. Judges are always trying to take people's life stories into account when setting a judgment, which is why some people who have clearly committed assault are not given as harsh a punishment as they should probably be given. If one person hits another person, prove it and put the hitter in jail for assault for whatever the average amount of time is for assault. Case closed.
The problem, of course, crops up when you start taking gender, race, etc. into account, which causes all the dissatisfaction and is pretty much the basis of the arguments here. A man who hits a woman will probably face a harsher penalty than a man who hits another man or two men who get in a fight or a woman who hits another woman or two women who get in a fight (I'd say the penalties go in that order of harshness). You also have the problem of proving domestic violence charges, since the spouse is usually unwilling to testify against the assailant. So, in a perfect world, the system would 1. be impartial and 2. would not need to be partial due to the rest of history and 3. would have victims willing to testify against their attackers. Since all three are impossible to get all together you guys might as well save your breath and agree to disagree because it's never going to be the perfect system for probably 90% of the assault victims.
__________________
The Valiant Review |
![]() |
|
|