alt Hacker News> I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible.
It is (probably) impossible to write down a complete list of rules for how to judge even petty crimes. Someone who steals a loaf of bread because their child is starving should not be punished the same way as someone who steals a loaf of bread because they're a kleptomaniac.
No two situations are identical, and the problems start when you try to come up with a one-size-fits-all approach.
A human with sound judgement (and, arguably, some empathy) should be in control.
Someone with psychopathic characteristics would lie in their favour. So someone would need to fact check, a doctor would have to check if the children are actually starving? And on the other side, someone who contribute greatly to community and society, should that person get a lower sentence because of that?