Mikey wrote:The goalposts haven't changed - the authority to try Khan and the right to sentence him are inextricably bound. The relative leniency of the sentence is immaterial.
I'm not talking about the fact of the sentencing but the details of it. You went from this:
Khan was a civilian, and should have been remanded to the court system for trial and sentencing.
Arguing against Khan's marooning because he should have been sent to a civilian court. To this:
I guess the wicket is this: was Kirk out of bounds in applying the sentence that he did? In other words, was banishment to the planet a charted response to the crime?
Implying that your problem is now with the sentence itself rather than its origin.