[crispyambulance]

Yep. Exactly. There's something to be said for a little wiggle room outside of "the rules".

And for what it worth, he was "detained" (in a way) and had to pay a steep fine of $500, and had to face some significant stressful (and interesting) uncertainty. It was perhaps not as punitive as rules-oriented folks might like, but I think its safe to say that this guy is now careful to have his paperwork in order on foreign trips. What more can one expect?

[swhipple]

It may be too easy to look at this and be appreciative of the humanity and 'wiggle room' if one should be the person to benefit from it. Would a local be afforded the same wiggle room?

Recently, I read an anecdote about someone in the US arrested for drug possession. The family was well-known in the community. Charges were dropped due to minor procedural errors. Other cases with potential procedural errors are pursued and the accused are often recommended to take plea deals.

> What more can one expect?

Someone may find it great that the rules were bent for a not-so-bad infraction. Someone else may want a system that is evenly applied and by-the-book in all situations.

[crispyambulance]

> Someone else may want a system that is fair and by-the-book in all situations.

It is utterly unreasonable to expect or desire everything to be "by the book" all the time. If you do, you'll be sorely disappointed with the real world.

Your particular example actually works against your argument. The "minor procedural errors" were likely discovered and exploited by highly compensated lawyers who make a living negotiating with the "fair" rules. The real problem for both cases is getting arrested in the first place. Both actors likely spent a miserable night in jail. Could a little discretion from the police involved have averted the misery, expense, and absurd waste of resources grinding the gears of the criminal justice system over nothing much at all? I think so.

[swhipple]

I don't have the story around, but if I recall correctly, the minor procedural errors were forgetting to read Miranda rights. In the US, conviction can be based on possession without that form of evidence. Let's say for the sake of the argument that social status was an important factor here.

If going by-the-book is overly harsh, then the book needs to be amended. Bending the rules is not really praiseworthy, though it may end up with an good result in a particular case. It's not what I prefer in a justice system.

[wtetzner]

The problem is that it's basically impossible to come up with a book of rules that are reasonable to enforce in all circumstances. The world is too complicated for that, which is why it's necessary to look at each case individually.

[swhipple]

Right, I don't mean to imply that there can never be any nuance or discretion within the system.

But in the author's case the rules were bent for him (officers rewriting his confession, having 'the' lenient judge; "It seems like she might actually let him off," said the prosecutor) and seems that he was either a) given special treatment, possibly influenced by US citizenship or education; or b) that the prosecution being baffled by the results is common. The author suggests that because of the officer camaraderie and that he received what he believes a reasonable punishment, it's an example of a better (more humane) system.

Cultures with different values will have differing punishments for transgressions, but an ideal justice system should aim to reduce bias and codify procedure, so that no one is left scratching their head at the end of the day.