On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:01:58PM -0500, Julia Randolph wrote: > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040812.html > > The study used to come up with the current sentencing guidelines > contained information ignored by those who set up the guidelines.
Sounds a bit paranoid to me. The article is almost completely lacking in specific facts, which should set off warning bells. What, specifically, are the problems with the sentencing guidelines, and what did Block and Nold offer as better alternatives? Why won't the author of the article reveal his real name? I agree that our criminal law and sentencing system could probably be greatly improved. But whining about the man ignoring Block and Nold without stating who is at fault, without revealing one's name, and not giving specific suggestions for improvement is hardly productive. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
