Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Well, just as one example, allowance for individual discretion resulted in highly disparate criminal sentencing based on race. That was the prime driver for the "anti-discretion" movement, but there are other examples, too. Point is, the only way to get rid of "discretion" is to substitute a complex, usually arcane, often thought-up-by-idiots explicit set of rules/procedures/criteria. It's the mindless imposition of those rules that usually gets called out as an example of bureaucratic stupidity, but, in reality, if you can't use discretion, you're going to have to deal with rules that can't possibly be made to fit nicely into every situation.
|
I have
got to cut down on the anchovy pizza and Kool-Ade before bed, because I'm having this awful flashback to the first year of law school.
I understand the tension between rules and discretion. When a system based on discretion is working poorly, you can substitute rules. Or, you can try to improve the quality of those making the discretionary judgments. With the war on terrorism, I say we do the latter.
