analog

Sometimes it's just about the harm done.

Example: 1. Woman is punched in the face by her husband one day. She shoots him in the face. Most likely she will receive some sort of sentence, even if something light because of "self defense" (even though being punched in the face isn't a mortal wound).

2a. Woman is punched in the face by her husband, every day, for a year. After a year of it, he hits her one day and she snaps and shoots him in the face. Find me a jury that would convict her of anything, I bet it would never happen.

2b. Woman is punched in the face by her husband, then beaten for 30 minutes or an hour. She fears, though he has made no actual threats to do so, that he will beat her until she dies. She shoots him in the face.

Now, tell me, what's the difference between the first scenario, and 2a/2b? Is it the multiple number of times it was done? Is it the severity of the one time it was done? Yes. It's in the harm that was caused.

If you have a 24 year old male and a 14 year old girl, you will almost definitely see psychological harm from it. Reverse the scenario (24 year old female and 14 year old male) and, although the offense is the same, the actual harm done could realistically be much less. It depends on the person. Should the harm caused and future mental state of the victim be taken into account when sentencing? That's the question.

Here's another: You speed and get clocked at 20mph over the limit. The harm that could have been done because of your speed is what it is. You speed in a school zone during peak time, get clocked doing 20 over the limit, and you get a much, much, much larger ticket. Why? The harm that could have been done is much greater.

That's what I see is at the heart of this whole type of problem.