I’m confused. Why did the judge use such a weird frame of reference for the sentence? How can you use casualties from one branch of the military, in a war over a century ago, for a case today? Seems entirely arbitrary and out of context.
Like, we don’t sentence thieves in 2023 based on how many boxes of tea were destroyed during the Boston Tea Party.
I’m confused. Why did the judge use such a weird frame of reference for the sentence? How can you use casualties from one branch of the military, in a war over a century ago, for a case today? Seems entirely arbitrary and out of context.
Like, we don’t sentence thieves in 2023 based on how many boxes of tea were destroyed during the Boston Tea Party.