In an effort to listen to the mod I'll address only the points, but you can't really expect much different when you storm into a debate saying someone's opinions are hot air and he's showing a lust for blood. It's not really going to end up well from there.
I'll be clear about this, the point is does the punishment fit the crime? If the worse aspect of the broader issue is deliberate match-fixing then this falls a long way short of that - a bookie's claims to influence on the field not withstanding (as the evidence of ultimate influence is not something he has claimed in any case). The second is the issue is that it is a young man committing his first offence, a consideration that in all fairness must be weighed. I don't see how assertions to the contrary have any weight.
All these points are acknowledged and ignored because of the severity of offence and how much this type of behaviour rots the core of the game. It's an extreme circumstance and like Scaly said, the game is above all individuals.
The other issue is your laughable claim that the game is in threat if extreme measures are not taken and audience participation will fall due to lack of confidence. Why not just leave it to the actual audiences to decide, over the long term, instead of speaking for other people? The only way this might be true is if a long running match fixing scandal involving numerous players and countries over a period of time came to light. But we are clearly a long way short of that. Cricket has always been something of a grubby game - lets not delude ourselves otherwise.
How much have you been following the saga? Unfortunately I have been on multiple forums (I call it thesis research...) and there is widespread disillusion with the sport right now. But that's not the point. I don't understand the notion that we should wait till the game falls apart before acting. Furthermore the fact that cricket has survived these issues in the past isn't an argument that heavy action shouldn't be taken now for a few reasons.
1. If heavier action would have been taken then we wouldn't have been in this situation now.
2. It barley survived those issues, IMO and it's taken a long time to recover.
3. Today's sporting market is getting as competitive as ever, whilst cricket is clearly struggling to keep its own. Lack of cricketing superstars, boring matches, east west feuding, confusion over formats - there's little goodwill for the sport and this type of thing could push it all over the edge - if suitable action isn't taken. I think some of the claims that Test cricket is dying are overplayed, however not when match fixing is involved. This is the one thing that really, really hurts it.
And why can't I speak for other people? This is a discussion forum where we predict and debate, hypothesise and argue.
Your 'central' point is far from pragmatic despite your assertions to the contrary. What I am arguing against is that, as seems likely, Aamer is not made to pay for two decades (if not more) of sloppy handling of a contentious issue, and for the repeated ills of Pakistani (and sub-continental) cricket. A lifelong ban would strip away a career and source of income as well as lead to a life of shame and stigma. Lol at your claims of being pragmatic. It may be the most effective way of dealing with the problem (although I'd disagree with that too) but it would also be unjust and unfair on Aamer.
Shame, stigma and all of that is unfortunate. There's no malicious intent involved though, I honestly feel for the kid. Calling for strict bans is simply my way of fixing the problem, it has nothing to do with punishment. That's why I said, if you look at it from that perspective, it's purely pragmatic, a way to fix the problem. If it was from a punishment viewpoint, then the debate of punishment fitting the crime comes into play, which is my central argument here.
Furthermore, I'm not advocating Aamer be the only one punished either, as I'd like to see Pakistani cricket banned for a year as well as a complete overhaul of cricket in the entire country, if the stuff about the Sydney Test, Asia Cup match, pak-eng ODIs are true as well as 7 players involved.
Furthermore I don't think I ever said anything about life bans. I'd lean towards it though.
