Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
This flexibility is what makes the law immoral.
|
No, lack of flexibility is what would make law immoral.
But there are a lot of differences between these crime, the largest one being that robbery is a *violent* crime and theft isn't. The amount doesn't matter; the law will punish someone who robs you of $2 at gunpoint more than someone who steals much more, but does it nonviolently.
It is a moral judgment that violent crimes deserve more punishment than nonviolent crimes.
Brown (the homeless man) had a significant criminal history. Allen (the CEO), was a first offender. It is a moral judgment that first offenders should be treated more leniently than people who have seven previous convictions (based on five separate episodes).
Allen's sentence was also lower because he wasn't the originator of the mortgage fraud and he cooperated in the investigation against the main fraudster. There is a moral judgment that people with reduced culpability deserve lower sentences than people with greater culpability. His sentence was also reduced because he cooperated with authorities in the investigation: society has also made the moral judgment that it is worth reducing the sentences of minor players to go after the big players. (While this is a moral judgment, it is different in kind from the other examples, which all focused on either: (1) the seriousness of the crime; or (2) the character of the offender. Reducing a cooperating witnesses sentence really has nothing to do with these issues - it is more about how the state can go after the most serious criminals.)
But all of these judgments are moral judgments. People are free to disagree with the particular judgments - but they would just be substituting other moral judgments. Like that the seriousness of the crime should be judged solely on the amount of money taken.