The law is both objective AND subjective. When you commit a crime and are found guilty there are sentencing guidelines. You can’t get off with community service if you’re found guilty of murder and you can’t be put in jail for 10 years for a traffic infraction. But many crimes will have huge differences in how a person can be sentenced dependent on mitigating factors. If you’ve heard “they’re facing 10 to life” that means they could go to jail for radically different amounts of time depending on how the judge and jury feel about the circumstances of the crime. This allows for judges and juries to have some level of discretion without throwing out objective standards. The law shouldn’t be wholly subjective, but it shouldn’t be completely blind to the circumstances of the situation either.
Agreed on all your points in your second paragraph. And I agree that speeding is far more dangerous than people generally accept. Maybe if you or I were the elected judge we would have given the guy a ticket. I just don’t think this case is an example of the justice system failing. It is simply the normal use of discretion in sentencing guidelines.
1
u/AverniteAdventurer Feb 27 '25 edited Feb 27 '25
The law is both objective AND subjective. When you commit a crime and are found guilty there are sentencing guidelines. You can’t get off with community service if you’re found guilty of murder and you can’t be put in jail for 10 years for a traffic infraction. But many crimes will have huge differences in how a person can be sentenced dependent on mitigating factors. If you’ve heard “they’re facing 10 to life” that means they could go to jail for radically different amounts of time depending on how the judge and jury feel about the circumstances of the crime. This allows for judges and juries to have some level of discretion without throwing out objective standards. The law shouldn’t be wholly subjective, but it shouldn’t be completely blind to the circumstances of the situation either.