And What About The Next Victim?
"A University of Utah survey of judges in 19 states found that if a convicted criminal is a psychopath, judges consider it an aggravating factor in sentencing, but if judges also hear biological explanations for the disorder, they reduce the sentence by about a year on average."
"Judges who were given a biological explanation for the convict's psychopathy imposed sentences averaging 12.83 years, or about a year less than the 13.93-year average sentence imposed by judges who were told only that the defendant was a psychopath, but didn't receive a biological explanation for the condition. In both cases, however, sentencing for the psychopath was longer than the judges' normal nine-year average sentence for aggravated battery."
This is another example of the outrageous lack of concern about harming people and about how to prevent it. The judges are only bothered about responsibility and punishment of the transgressors. Protecting the next victim from being harmed by someone, who is considered or suspected of being innately unable to refrain from harming is not in any of these judges' agenda.
The probability of harm to a future victim does not depend upon how much a judge understands transgressor's brain, but on the time, that the transgressor remains behind bars.
Every moment of a dangerous person being locked away reduces the risk for innocent people to be harmed. But nobody cares about this.
Without being able to know it, I assume that in the political climate of the USA, the majority of the judges in the study quoted above are christians. They do their job to apply laws, which have been made also mainly by christians.
Neither the judges nor the law makers are bothered about the victims, who are considered as their god's business and job to deal with by compensating the victims after they are dead. They consider it as their god's will to decide, who is to be harmed and to use the transgressors as his tools. Protecting innocents from becoming victims is implicitly considered as unwarranted interference and defiance.
Christian judges and law makers apply what they interpret from the commands in the bible as their god's will concerning transgression. They attempt to reconcile, what seems contradictory. Some parts the bible prescribe and allow revenge after having become a victim, other parts demand passive and humble forgiving of any atrocity.
Only the option of preventing harm by protecting the innocents, before they become victims seems too alien to be even mentioned anywhere in the bible.
Christianity based legal systems have found a specific work around for the contradiction.
The victims are expected to accept being harmed, to forgive and to wait for the reward in the afterlife. The legal and penal systems take over the revenge as the proxy of the victim. The amount of punishment as depending upon the magnitude of the transgression is an estimation of the appropriate revenge in the judgment of the god, could he be consulted.
The god in the christian bible does not care about the victims, so the legal and penal systems also do not care.
This is a copy from my ERCP-blog: