[john_b]

There is no shortage of lawyers who would love to be judge in his place. Making a principled stand against an unjust system is great, but making an effective stand is much better. I would rather have a judge who recognizes that mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea and simply gives the minimum sentence--even if it's too severe--than one who doesn't see a problem with mandatory minimum sentences at all.

Basically, this is a problem which was created by Congress, so ultimately the people of the U.S. are to blame here, and the responsibility for electing the right representatives to fix it lies with them.

[Retra]

I think the problem here is that while you would rather have that judge, this particular person has decided not to be that judge for you. He would rather not be a judge than be the judge that you want.

Anyway, you can't blame "the people of the US" for how their legal system works. Most of them were born into it and trained from birth to have enough apathy to let it be what it is. Most of the people who are at fault are dead, so there's really no point in trying to blame anyone. I don't know why you have that impulse, except to say that you are employing the same kind of thinking that leads to these problems in the first place; Namely, claiming it isn't your problem.

So that's a right useless thing to say, if you ask me. If you want a revolution, blaming your public is essentially going to make them believe they are stupid, lazy, apathetic cynics; it's not going to cause it.

[jessaustin]

You may be giving GP entirely too much credit here. When I've heard these arguments before, it has been from those for whom "revolution" would be anathema. Such people like the system we've got, and they say "blame the people" in order to avoid admitting their preference for injustice.