Yes, being specific is more specific. I assume you're implying that more specific = better. The point of the comenter you replied to is that the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary. You shouldn't need a judge to give your doctor permission to provide you with healthcare. It doesn't matter what kind it is.
IanSomnia
joined 1 year ago
This link does a better job of elaboting than I could. But essentially there are punishments outlined for particular crimes. However, the judge may determine the severity of the outlined punishment on a case by case basis. Also, there are alternative punishments that a judge may use at their discretion, or at the request of the defense.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-sentencing-faq.html
Here's an article about 7 unusual punishments given by judges.
https://theweek.com/articles/474331/7-ridiculously-bizarre-court-sentences
Any punishment that isn't a fine, jail time, or community service is unusual by definition because those are the typical consequences. However, it is written into our laws that a judge may deviate from this norm if they feel it more suitable. So yes, a judge could interpret this as unusual, but I they have the legal freedom to decide it's not.
She was also given a choice so she isn't being forced into the "unusual" punishment. She chose it over conventional punishments.
What's cruel about it? It seems akin to community service which is handed down as legal punishment all the time.
Ah that sucks. I guess I should have seen that coming. Some people just won't learn =/ I wish there was a better way to prevent these parents from ruining the game for everyone.
Some little leagues have a similar rule. If a parent verbally abuses an umpire enough that parent must umpire a certain number of games to see just how hard it is. Punishment fits the crime perfectly.
What is xManager?
"Scientists rely on peer review to safeguard against bias. Unlike Salvalaggio’s paper, the government study was not peer-reviewed."
Bruh
West Coast best coast once again.
view more: next ›
Hide our stance? The original commenter summarized the article in a way that made their stance clear. They believe the procedure in the article is medical care. They don't have to state what procedure they're talking about because it's in the article.
Your accusation that they're trying to hide what the procedure is leads me to believe you don't agree that it is healthcare. So in the interest of having a productive discussion about the topic of this article I will make an argument and ask you what you think.
What is considered healthcare should be decided by medical professional consensus.
Your access to healthcare should not be dependent on a judges approval.
The procedure we are discussing detailed in the article is considered healthcare by medical professional consensus.
Conclusion. Access to the procedure we are discussing detailed in the article should not be dependent on a judges approval.
What do you think?