> On Thu, 3 Nov 1994, Matthew Gream wrote:
>
> > The judge more than anything is concerned with the individual, not with
> > appeasing the community.
>
>
> Actually, I think your just about *exactly* wrong. Judges do not give
> sentences as a form means of personal revenge for the victim. Judges give
> sentences for the "good of the community". The law is visible justice, a
> quote often used by judges is "justice must be seen to have been done".
Yes, but... The judge should be there to serve a sentence that fits the
crime committed not that which satisfies what the community thinks should
be dealt out. Often the community can be overly emotional on the subject
at hand and thus there wishes are unfair for the criminal.
We must remember that even though they have done something wrong they are
still people and the sentence brought down is with regards to *their*
actions not to appease the community of their actions.
>
> Rehabilitation of criminals is there for the community good. The benefit
> to the criminal seems to be only secondary in nature.
>
This is a very calice view. Yes the rehabilitation can be seen to benefit
the society in returning citizens who will conform to the legal aspects
of society (not that it always works), but It is *not* put there for the
purpose of saving the community but rather of helping the criminals come
back into society
>
> On a less etherial point I suggest, given the transitory nature of data,
> that any accused persons account should be locked *immediately*, until the
> matter is decided. Also that false accusation should be considered grounds
> for possible offence.
>
This on the other hand is very fair.
> -----------------------------------------------
> Scott Hopwood shopwood@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au
>
> 'A monkey throws,
> A spinning bone,
> A silent spaceship'
>
>
>
Timbo (alias Gargamel) Sadler | Trust because you are willing
trsadler@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au | to accept the risk,
gargamel@nospam.ftoomsh.socs.uts.edu.au | not beacuase it is safe
A mere student... | or certain.