Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nisses
Suave:
"To separate yourself completely from the situation simply because you have the situational fortitude to do so is no more right than is to base legal judgements on one's own emotional attachment, or lack thereof, to the accused."
How come then, in every matter of court a judge, a lawyer, a member of a jury will get removed from the case if there is an emotional attachment to the case?
Seems to me that it IS right to do so, exactly *because* you have to option.
If you hope to achieve *any* level of equality in punishment for misdemeanors and crimes, you'll do well to have an unattached entity judge it, compassion included(which like you said, should be applied regardless).
I'm not saying that for the parties involved, this wouldn't have been a tragedy, to lose somebody... Far from it.
What I am saying is that even though it would have been one, the punishment should still have to stand.
As for Sweetpea: what good can come from mocking a person's use of a word in the correct way?
|
Emotional attachment to the case is only in reference to emotional bias. Bias is the absolute key word here. It is not about removing emotion from the process, it is about treating everyone equally. First off, it is impossible to remove bias in reality anyway, and it will always be there no matter how "objective" people are. Second, it is possible to be unbiased and involve emotion, or to be biased purely on a logical basis. Just because the concepts are not generally considered in such a manner does not make logic infallible and emotion fallible. It all depends how they are applied.