Why do you think at sentencing hearings the defense points out and calls witnesses pointing to the character of an individual, their family, role in the community and so on? The reason is because these are all factors in sentencing depending on the crime and whether that individual is a danger to society or not.The Judicial system isn't perfectly robotic. But it is supposed to be blind. Stripping as much emotionalism out of the process as possible is how we try to make sure that it is just. When emotions and sympathy make justice decisions, you get bias.
Not true at all. I am all for it, because stronger borders and strengthening penalties against those that employ illegal immigrants prevents these types of situations from developing in the first place.Sure, except that no one is willing to do so because people like you will insist that it's mean.
Thats a far too simplistic argument. DHS estimates that they can at best deport approximately 400,000 people a year. If you were in the unfortunately position that you could only prosecute 20% of criminals in a given year, you would probably find it makes the most practical sense to prosecute those criminals that constituted the most danger to society and not just randomly go after them in a haphazard manner.Agreed. We are also not going to be able to catch and prosecute all murders, all low-level identity thefts, all pyramid schemes, all of those who frequent underage prostitutes, or all of those who purchase and sell illegal narcotics. The inability to perfectly enforce the law does not justify the argument that one should not enforce it when you can.
Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?This case isn't black and white. But the issue that you are trying to inject into it has and should have zero bearing in a legal proceeding.