Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I disagree with you,
The system should be focused on the best rehabilitation approach for each person especially for first offenders. You are looking at the Justice system as being a tool of punishment which in my opinion should be secondary to its focus on rehabilitation...
|
Rehabilitation is just one of the justice system components. I don't believe the system should be giving some components more focus than others. Not everyone needs rehabilitation after committing an offense or a crime and not everyone could be rehabilitated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
...
We also sentence based on personal background all the time, past criminal history is regularly considered as deserving of an increased severity for the same act. Why shouldn't mitigating factors for the action be considered as well?
|
Mitigating factors are mitigating factors; no dispute here. I return to the same premise where we've started: all other things being equal, the proposed change could have the same judge sentence two criminals for the SAME crime differently based only on their cultural/racial background; thus, making their background a mitigating factor. That is wrong. I only argue that point.
Here's another example: a Palestinian immigrant desecrating a Canadian synagogue, because he is really angry about his family's difficult situation back in Gaza vs. a white supremacist doing the same thing out of simple hate. If I understand your line of argument correctly, the first guy's background should be given a special positive consideration in deliberating a verdict, severity of offense and sentencing, while the second guy should not be given this consideration. (BTW, I totally appreciate that one of them could be a repeat offender with history of similar incidents; granted.) But assuming that there are no such other factors, I argue they should both receive the same treatment by courts regardless of their cultural and racial background.