Report comment

Oh, surprise, surprise! - the law is found to be irrational: how have all the Professors in Faculties of Law failed to notice this? What logic do lawmakers use to decide the difference between causing an accident 'carelessly' or 'recklessly'? And why do they even bother to try, rather than leaving it to judges to decide how severe the accused could/should have anticipated the consequences to be, and to sentence him/her according to that severity? Of course, the judges are just as irrational in their sentencing: you get 6 accused found guilty of taking somewhat different parts in a crime that they all knew would have serious consequences for the victim, but the judge will be meticulous in trying to assess the slight differences of sentence s/he will pronounce for each. Haul the judge up and get him to explain to the devastated victim and/or a group of unaffected normal people his rationale for deciding how the person with the lightest sentence had caused less harm than the one with the heaviest, and how each was an equally 'just' evaluation, and I would expect a pantomime of ineffective squirming.