Al, you asked whether I think someone's proven moral standing ("for want of a better term") should INCREASE their sentence. In the context of a thread discussing religious affiliation maybe allowing someone to better know the difference between right & wrong I took it that you meant someone's appreciation of wrongdoing having a bearing on their sentence.
The converse surely applies in the case of kids, who're believed not to be capable of this, hence either not responsible or else generally handed lesser sentences. Similarly, genuine psychopaths don't go to prison, they go to secure hospitals - implying that, yes, sentencing differs according to understanding of the rules of society/morality.
I would also suggest that someone with (According to Cherie) a particularly good understanding of right and wrong might even be argued to have lost control of themselves to a greater extent, which might suggest (if the provocation was the same) that they are the more dangerous individual - no ? (I'd also say that lying about the event afterwards would make that man not very devout anyway - another inconsistency in the commentary)
As far as being "of good character" - this seems bollocks to me. If neither you nor I has ever chased a man down the street & assaulted him but then we both do so tomorrow, how is it relevant that you're kind to kittens etc (or more relevantly have friends in high places to vouch for you)? We've both done the same thing without any previous wrongdoing. (I could accept mitigating circs such as him insulting your dear old mum, or telling you that he's shagged your missus, but not that you've just come from the temple or that you're nice to the neighbours).
Further, to suggest that this dubious "good character" argument can be bolstered just because you're religious is utter crap IMO (in support I offered 2 admittedly inflammatory examples of religious people who have the capacity for doing bad things)
