Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Maybe not but does the "punishment" really fit the "crime"?
|
Absolutely not. As I said:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Politicophile
...this looks more like a case of unjust laws than of a bad juridical process.
|
My point here is that I believe the judge, prosecutor, and jury all enforced the law in accordance with how it is written. Yes, they excluded a witness whose testimony had not undergone the necessary discovery. Yes, the people involved in the trial were not computer literate. Yes, 40 years in prison is an absurd sentence for this crime.
BUT, I believe Amero failed to do everything within reason to prevent the children from seeing pornography. She was negligent and her conviction was therefore justified. Am I reading this correctly when I see that she actually hasn't been sentenced yet and that the maximum possible penalty is 40 years?
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|