Maybe you are a wizard with back-ups and clouds, but—if not—losing your phone will induce real panic at least, and at worst something like grief.It’s a graver matter than losing a Walkman a generation back, because it’s also the loss of an address book and a family photo album, and maybe the friendships and memories embedded in these.

It might, then, sound like common sense for the sentencing council to specify, as it did in new guidelines this week, that the "emotional distress" that might result from stolen personal data will now be deemed an aggravating factor in punishing thieves.But this is one small part of a developing emphasis on feelings in the criminal justice system, which comes at the expense of its traditional dispassion.

The system has always had to reckon with the consequences of misdeeds, of course.Get caught speeding after killing a child and your treatment is, inevitably, harsher than if you had the good luck to get clocked speeding just as recklessly before you’d caused any harm.Steal a phone that turns out to contain the only photo of a lost love and you have, arguably, had the same sort of "moral misfortune" as the speeding motorist who just happened to run into a child.Feelings of loss are, however, a much more subjective matter than the solid fact of a lost life.The potentially perverse consequences of leaning too heavily on the emotions of victims was illustrated last month when the court of appeal ruled that abusers of Asian children deserved longer sentences because their victims suffered more than other children.Shame may well be a special problem in some communities, but give that too much weight and the divisive effect might be to leave other victims feeling like they warrant less protection.

The scales of justice have to weigh all sorts of things—facts, culpability and the public interest.Adding feelings to the mix, in the name of "tilting the balance toward the victim", is always tough to argue against, but won’t always make things fairer.Sometimes, as with victims’ pre-sentence statements, it has been done without the dire consequences that defense lawyers feared.But sometimes, as when a bloody-minded victim is consulted on the precise charges to be pursued, process gets arbitrarily distorted.

It is the state, not the victim, that prosecutes.If that is forgotten, retribution will take precedence over other aims of punishment,such as rehabilitation.The demand will always be to add new aggravating, not relaxing, factors.And in writing courtroom rules, the pressure will be to secure more convictions at the expense of the old overriding priority of ensuring the innocent go free.The 19th and 20th centuries saw ever-more protections extended to those in the dock：it was a civilizing march.In the 21st century so far, all the emphasis is instead on feelings in the witness stand.That can’t go on forever without upsetting the scales.

According to Paragraph 2, which of the following is true of the new guidelines?

Maybe you are a wizard with back-ups and clouds, but—if not—losing your phone will induce real panic at least, and at worst something like grief.It’s a graver matter than losing a Walkman a generation back, because it’s also the loss of an address book and a family photo album, and maybe the friendships and memories embedded in these.

It might, then, sound like common sense for the sentencing council to specify, as it did in new guidelines this week, that the "emotional distress" that might result from stolen personal data will now be deemed an aggravating factor in punishing thieves.But this is one small part of a developing emphasis on feelings in the criminal justice system, which comes at the expense of its traditional dispassion.

The system has always had to reckon with the consequences of misdeeds, of course.Get caught speeding after killing a child and your treatment is, inevitably, harsher than if you had the good luck to get clocked speeding just as recklessly before you’d caused any harm.Steal a phone that turns out to contain the only photo of a lost love and you have, arguably, had the same sort of "moral misfortune" as the speeding motorist who just happened to run into a child.Feelings of loss are, however, a much more subjective matter than the solid fact of a lost life.The potentially perverse consequences of leaning too heavily on the emotions of victims was illustrated last month when the court of appeal ruled that abusers of Asian children deserved longer sentences because their victims suffered more than other children.Shame may well be a special problem in some communities, but give that too much weight and the divisive effect might be to leave other victims feeling like they warrant less protection.

The scales of justice have to weigh all sorts of things—facts, culpability and the public interest.Adding feelings to the mix, in the name of "tilting the balance toward the victim", is always tough to argue against, but won’t always make things fairer.Sometimes, as with victims’ pre-sentence statements, it has been done without the dire consequences that defense lawyers feared.But sometimes, as when a bloody-minded victim is consulted on the precise charges to be pursued, process gets arbitrarily distorted.

It is the state, not the victim, that prosecutes.If that is forgotten, retribution will take precedence over other aims of punishment,such as rehabilitation.The demand will always be to add new aggravating, not relaxing, factors.And in writing courtroom rules, the pressure will be to secure more convictions at the expense of the old overriding priority of ensuring the innocent go free.The 19th and 20th centuries saw ever-more protections extended to those in the dock：it was a civilizing march.In the 21st century so far, all the emphasis is instead on feelings in the witness stand.That can’t go on forever without upsetting the scales.

The "perverse consequences"(Line 8, Para.3) refers to______.

Maybe you are a wizard with back-ups and clouds, but—if not—losing your phone will induce real panic at least, and at worst something like grief.It’s a graver matter than losing a Walkman a generation back, because it’s also the loss of an address book and a family photo album, and maybe the friendships and memories embedded in these.

It might, then, sound like common sense for the sentencing council to specify, as it did in new guidelines this week, that the "emotional distress" that might result from stolen personal data will now be deemed an aggravating factor in punishing thieves.But this is one small part of a developing emphasis on feelings in the criminal justice system, which comes at the expense of its traditional dispassion.

The system has always had to reckon with the consequences of misdeeds, of course.Get caught speeding after killing a child and your treatment is, inevitably, harsher than if you had the good luck to get clocked speeding just as recklessly before you’d caused any harm.Steal a phone that turns out to contain the only photo of a lost love and you have, arguably, had the same sort of "moral misfortune" as the speeding motorist who just happened to run into a child.Feelings of loss are, however, a much more subjective matter than the solid fact of a lost life.The potentially perverse consequences of leaning too heavily on the emotions of victims was illustrated last month when the court of appeal ruled that abusers of Asian children deserved longer sentences because their victims suffered more than other children.Shame may well be a special problem in some communities, but give that too much weight and the divisive effect might be to leave other victims feeling like they warrant less protection.

The scales of justice have to weigh all sorts of things—facts, culpability and the public interest.Adding feelings to the mix, in the name of "tilting the balance toward the victim", is always tough to argue against, but won’t always make things fairer.Sometimes, as with victims’ pre-sentence statements, it has been done without the dire consequences that defense lawyers feared.But sometimes, as when a bloody-minded victim is consulted on the precise charges to be pursued, process gets arbitrarily distorted.

It is the state, not the victim, that prosecutes.If that is forgotten, retribution will take precedence over other aims of punishment,such as rehabilitation.The demand will always be to add new aggravating, not relaxing, factors.And in writing courtroom rules, the pressure will be to secure more convictions at the expense of the old overriding priority of ensuring the innocent go free.The 19th and 20th centuries saw ever-more protections extended to those in the dock：it was a civilizing march.In the 21st century so far, all the emphasis is instead on feelings in the witness stand.That can’t go on forever without upsetting the scales.

According to Paragraph 4, sentences considering feelings of victims______.

Maybe you are a wizard with back-ups and clouds, but—if not—losing your phone will induce real panic at least, and at worst something like grief.It’s a graver matter than losing a Walkman a generation back, because it’s also the loss of an address book and a family photo album, and maybe the friendships and memories embedded in these.

It might, then, sound like common sense for the sentencing council to specify, as it did in new guidelines this week, that the "emotional distress" that might result from stolen personal data will now be deemed an aggravating factor in punishing thieves.But this is one small part of a developing emphasis on feelings in the criminal justice system, which comes at the expense of its traditional dispassion.

The system has always had to reckon with the consequences of misdeeds, of course.Get caught speeding after killing a child and your treatment is, inevitably, harsher than if you had the good luck to get clocked speeding just as recklessly before you’d caused any harm.Steal a phone that turns out to contain the only photo of a lost love and you have, arguably, had the same sort of "moral misfortune" as the speeding motorist who just happened to run into a child.Feelings of loss are, however, a much more subjective matter than the solid fact of a lost life.The potentially perverse consequences of leaning too heavily on the emotions of victims was illustrated last month when the court of appeal ruled that abusers of Asian children deserved longer sentences because their victims suffered more than other children.Shame may well be a special problem in some communities, but give that too much weight and the divisive effect might be to leave other victims feeling like they warrant less protection.

The scales of justice have to weigh all sorts of things—facts, culpability and the public interest.Adding feelings to the mix, in the name of "tilting the balance toward the victim", is always tough to argue against, but won’t always make things fairer.Sometimes, as with victims’ pre-sentence statements, it has been done without the dire consequences that defense lawyers feared.But sometimes, as when a bloody-minded victim is consulted on the precise charges to be pursued, process gets arbitrarily distorted.

It is the state, not the victim, that prosecutes.If that is forgotten, retribution will take precedence over other aims of punishment,such as rehabilitation.The demand will always be to add new aggravating, not relaxing, factors.And in writing courtroom rules, the pressure will be to secure more convictions at the expense of the old overriding priority of ensuring the innocent go free.The 19th and 20th centuries saw ever-more protections extended to those in the dock：it was a civilizing march.In the 21st century so far, all the emphasis is instead on feelings in the witness stand.That can’t go on forever without upsetting the scales.

The author regard 19th and 20th centuries as a civilizing march due to______.

Maybe you are a wizard with back-ups and clouds, but—if not—losing your phone will induce real panic at least, and at worst something like grief.It’s a graver matter than losing a Walkman a generation back, because it’s also the loss of an address book and a family photo album, and maybe the friendships and memories embedded in these.

It might, then, sound like common sense for the sentencing council to specify, as it did in new guidelines this week, that the "emotional distress" that might result from stolen personal data will now be deemed an aggravating factor in punishing thieves.But this is one small part of a developing emphasis on feelings in the criminal justice system, which comes at the expense of its traditional dispassion.

The system has always had to reckon with the consequences of misdeeds, of course.Get caught speeding after killing a child and your treatment is, inevitably, harsher than if you had the good luck to get clocked speeding just as recklessly before you’d caused any harm.Steal a phone that turns out to contain the only photo of a lost love and you have, arguably, had the same sort of "moral misfortune" as the speeding motorist who just happened to run into a child.Feelings of loss are, however, a much more subjective matter than the solid fact of a lost life.The potentially perverse consequences of leaning too heavily on the emotions of victims was illustrated last month when the court of appeal ruled that abusers of Asian children deserved longer sentences because their victims suffered more than other children.Shame may well be a special problem in some communities, but give that too much weight and the divisive effect might be to leave other victims feeling like they warrant less protection.

The scales of justice have to weigh all sorts of things—facts, culpability and the public interest.Adding feelings to the mix, in the name of "tilting the balance toward the victim", is always tough to argue against, but won’t always make things fairer.Sometimes, as with victims’ pre-sentence statements, it has been done without the dire consequences that defense lawyers feared.But sometimes, as when a bloody-minded victim is consulted on the precise charges to be pursued, process gets arbitrarily distorted.

It is the state, not the victim, that prosecutes.If that is forgotten, retribution will take precedence over other aims of punishment,such as rehabilitation.The demand will always be to add new aggravating, not relaxing, factors.And in writing courtroom rules, the pressure will be to secure more convictions at the expense of the old overriding priority of ensuring the innocent go free.The 19th and 20th centuries saw ever-more protections extended to those in the dock：it was a civilizing march.In the 21st century so far, all the emphasis is instead on feelings in the witness stand.That can’t go on forever without upsetting the scales.

Which of the following may be the best title of the text?