Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
What are you talking about?
I said innocence should have no bearing on the sentence. They are already convicted and found guilty. If there's the potential that they are innocent, I really don't think they should have been found guilty (duh) but that's a fault on the trial not the sentencing. You can't base sentencing on the possibility of them being innocent because that screws with the whole system.
And if you are basing it on them being innocent, 75 years or 25, does it really matter? Any time locked up is cruel and unusual to an innocent person. There's other avenues for a potentially innocent person to take, sentencing is not one of them.
Just imagine if a judge based his sentencing on the potential of the person not being guilty, that would instantly cause a mistrial and pretty much ensure the guy's freedom ha.
|
I think you are missing a key point in my original argument. An innocent person will be sentenced to whatever punishment you have established. I'm not advocating that the possibility that Garland is innocent be considered in the constitutionality of his sentence
I am saying the the fact that an innocent person will eventually be sentenced needs to be considered in the constitutionality of any sentence. If you are not comfortable sentencing an innocent person to 75 years in jail then you shouldn't be comfortable with that sentence existing.