Fairness means having the same opportunities, not the same outcomes. If two children have a test in algebra and one studies while the other simply cannot grasp the concepts is it fair that they receive the same grade?

equal natural human rights! . I love Sowell. -- j

"Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need. And the only way to get what you need is to make it happen yourself."
Rick Riordan (from The Red Pyramid)

That made me retch a bit.

I, for one, am glad that you did. It should absolutely give you deep satisfaction knowing you've taught people to think, not obey. Agreed, parents need to step up and parent. It's hard work!! But that's what one signs up for when choosing to become one. I'm tough when I need to be and work with teachers not against them. There are a few in my family. I hear things that are truly astounding that parents try to pull. This is why there are so many whiny "adults" who have no idea what it means to be accountable. They were never taught. Ugh!!!

Outcomes are a result of actions. Free men will act differently, so outcomes will be different. So the cause for inequality is freedom. To eliminate inequality it is mandatory to eliminate its cause: liberty.

Corollary: Inequality shows what actions were better, so free men can make better decisions in the future. Inequality is good, it is the driving force for true progress.

No surprise. In nature there is flow of energy or mass only because of a gradient (voltage, temperature, pressure, etc) , which is inequality.

To believe all people are equal is to be as foggy-brained as an alcoholic finishing off a pint of Corby's. Do I have to point out how some people are better than other people at this or that? My grandmother's cousin who was a tailor in Soviet Russia was assigned duties as a photographer when the Bolsheviks took over. He didn't know an F stop, from an F minor. But then, the Commies actually thought that since everyone was equal, everyone was interchangeable. It was just one of the reasons the 5 year plans failed every time.

To me, human beings are the most precious things in the universe, as far as I know anything about the universe. In my life,I have attempted to do many, many things, being mostly less than mediocre in doing them. On the other hand, though, throughout my life, I have tried to excel in three things: parenting, teaching and managing. In all that I have tried my utmost to help people do their very best. That way they have obeyed that constitutional dictum: "go and make the best of your life." This amounts to a very deliberate effort to destroy that phony equality of outcomes. Nothing else gave me so many deep satisfactions.
I know that this sounds like bragging. I feel frustrated that these ideas are so infrequently expressed bluntly and forcefully in our country these days. On top, I perceive too many people disinterested in good parenting, hear so much about bad teachers and see every day so many examples of incompetent management. This gave an opportunity to vent and I could not resist it.

Anybody watch the "Twilight Zone" marathon on SyFy over the New Year? Two episodes, in particular.
Uniformity is a state objective:

"Number 12 Looks Just Like You"
Everyone goes through a "transformation", that makes them look and think alike.

"Eye of the Beholder"
Leader: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight, I shall talk to you about Glorious Conformity. About the delights, and the ultimate pleasure of our unified society....We know now that there must be a single purpose, a single norm, a single approach, a single entity of people, a single virtue, a single morality,...we must cut out all differences like a cancerous growth....that in this society, we not only have a norm but we CONFORM TO THE NORM! Differences weaken us, they destroy us. CONFORMITY IS THE SEED OF SURVIVAL!

I would propose that rehabilitation is just one of the goals of a justice system, with prevention, punishment and restitution being important as well. The big question, of course, is how to balance those, as serving all at once is probably impossible. As to the current purpose of prisons, if reformation is the goal, they have failed completely; I can't think of any country or time when prisons have reformed people as a matter of course. "Clockwork Orange" was perhaps the best example...

We are in a general agreement and probably would view a judge's actions similarly, but there are people at the extremes that would question the impartiality of any judge or judgement. Unfortunately, codifying impartiality is pretty difficult. But a discussion of the subject is healthy, in my view.

I would argue that justice ignores status, but not necessarily circumstances. And punishment should always be about rehabilitation. If it is judged that the nature of the crimes or the recidivism of the individual be such that rehabilitation is judged to be impossible, I don't see the need to keep wasting money on their incarceration - execute them. IMHO, prisons are for reformation, not merely segregation.

Neither one of the extremes you have presented are just in my book. The POTUS or the popper should receive equal treatment, status having no bearing. As far as whether one can be re-rehabilitated or punished, or the severity of the punishment goes, that is where the need for an impartial objective judge is essential. Individual circumstances and context must be judged. It is quite probable that a serial killer is unfit for rehabilitation and for the safety of all must never see the outside of a prison.
Does that answer your question?

It is but one man's opinion and sense of justice, but I think it captures and is generally congruent with principles of our founding documents. It is an aspiration, that is plainly not always met, but should be the objective.

It’s just a trick used by politicians and agitators (community organizers) to convince some of society’s marginal citizens that the world owes them something. And of course by following said politician and/or community organizer everything will be all better.

The question I posed was theoretical. For the moment, remove it from our circumstances and our failures. On one extreme, there's 14-15th Century Japan where the same offense was openly viewed as deserving different punishment depending on the offender's status. A nobleman could murder a peasant and be given a slap on the wrist, when as a peasant would be beheaded. On the other side, in some countries in Europe a rich person is given a higher fine for the same offense than a poor person is. Are any of those situations just? Then again - is the purpose of a sentence to preclude one of committing an offense, to punish for the offense, or to reform a person from desiring to commit the next offense or perhaps to bring restitution to the victim? If all of the above, I would argue that it is difficult to satisfy four disparate requirements in one action. And perhaps to throw in more confusion, a relatively minor punishment to an otherwise upstanding individual may satisfy more of the above requirements than a heavier punishment to a recidivist.

Agreed.

The pendulum swings both ways. A true judge should be able to show mercy or intolerance depending upon circumstance with justice for victims and safety of society given due consideration.

No! No! No! Comrade Citizens, equality is--
Shut up and go Hyde!
My Dr. Jekyll is barely overcoming my now livid evil socialist twin. (I was once a lib).
That last line is a spectacular statement. My bright half is stealing it too.

Recidivism is an indication that the previous incarceration and rehabilitation failed for that individual. Sentences are only estimates for how long the judge thinks it will take that individual to change their ways - they are not absolutes and should not be treated as such. It should also be noted that prisons nowadays focus way too much on simply removing the individual from society and not nearly enough on rehabilitation and enabling them to rejoin society as a functioning, contributing member. If we want to honestly address the issue, we must stop treating incarceration as a temporary holding facility and more like a re-education facility. And one does not get released until re-education is complete.

Hello strugatsky,
Interesting question. My thoughts are that here is the true worth of human judges who understand and dispense justice. Zero tolerance and three strike laws do not allow for extenuating and mitigating circumstances. Justice to be served, must be weighed in context on the scales of justice by one that dispenses it objectively and humanely all things considered. Here these matters have no bearing on social position, status.
Respectfully,
O.A.

And to all such "honest Progressives" I would suggest the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut.

Just a point of possible interest - when a sentence is handed down with consideration of the guilty party's previous record (good or bad), is that an inherently unjust application of the law? Or would an exactly the same proecedure, with no deviations (aka "zero tolerance") be an even more idiotic option?

We are all equal? Damn! I want my own talk show, and to star in the next action movie with Sandra Bullock!

Love all the actors and other entertainment public figures using their access to argue such.

Notice all the hot progressive girls dating nerdy "equal" guys? I mean, it's not about looks right?