On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:05:54 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Robert X. Cringely is pretty well-known. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.12/cringely.html Whining about paranoia and ignoring the thrust of the article doesn't seem productive to me. "Why should we care about any of this? "Well, for one thing, I knew Fred Nold and hate to think that his work would die with him. But much more importantly, we should care because I'm told the Block and Nold study, which was intended to economically validate the proposed sentencing guidelines, instead showed that the new guidelines would actually create more crime than they would deter. More crime, more drug use, more robbery, more murder would be the result, not less. Not only that, but these guidelines would lead to entire segments of the population entering a downward economic spiral, taking away their American dream." Gary Denton -- #2 on google for liberal news "I don't try harder" _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
