WharfRat wrote:Art Vandelay wrote:WharfRat wrote:See, I don't think that's an accurate assessment. I think we can agree that Tookie's time in prison was of a negative benefit. The end result was NOT a good, because while in prison he continued to do bad that outweighed the good. Reduce it to numerical value, where positive is good and negative is bad. So let's say his books are worth a 3, but his refusal to cooperate is a -7. So 3 + (-7) = -4. The outcome is negative; so why would you reward a negative? If it had been a liquor store holdup, the Gov. would have declined to shorten th sentence, and made him serve out the remaining two years or whatever.
You can't just assess arbritrary numbers to something then pass it off as fact, or truth, rather. Your post assumes way to much.
Did you read my previous post? I spelled it out. I thought using numbers would make my point a little clearer. But since you missed the point entirely, c'est la vie.
I got the point...I just disagree with it. You assign arbritrary numbers to actions that you deem good or bad and then pass off your made up equation as something substantial. You also assume that his non-action in giving the police information about the make up of the gang is bad (and somehow warrants a rating of -7...but you give no explanation as to why). It seems like a fun game, maybe I'll try:
I like children's books, so I'll say they're worth a positive 10. And I don't consider non-action bad...so he gets no negative points. That's a net of positive 10...which proves that he should have been not only granted clemency...but released from prison. And don't try to argue...the numbers prove it.