Sure Sugar...

But pay attention to the fact that I used the word "POEL". The judge *rules* by the law but may *pass sentence* on a moral basis. A thief is a thief, but if one steels bread in order to feed his family the judge will probably choose a punishment from the low-end of the punishment scale that is available to him.

Well, precious, I'd first like to stress (if it wasn't stressed enough) that I differ betwen a ruling (psak din) and passing sentence (gzar din). Second, the fact is that the law doesn't state a specific penalty for every offence but gives the judge a varying range of penalties. This range lets the judge express a moral statement, that is inherently subjective, as you stated.

But huney-bunny, how can we encompas the wide variety of possible circumstances the law may be broken? the fact is that we, as a society, take into account the different circumstances of every crime. Did the mugger steal just for basic needs or for fun & profit? Was remorse expressed? etc. I can understand that this is a "subjective icon in the halls of court" but it's certainly not "unlawful" as far as I understand the concept of man's law (not physical laws). I can somewhat understand the fine (knas) example that you gave, but can you extend this example to prison terms also? I think this would be impossible.

see the discussion between GEG and me on the thread right above our heads:
תגובה 72296