why does the judgement differs in every court for the same case even though the law is same for everyone.?

Question

if suppose the high court gives capital punishment for a convict, the supreme court may change the judgement and give life imprisionment for the same case. why does this happen

Answer 1

You said judgments... judgments refer to financial rewards and each case is different. Judgments are based on the loss of the victim.

Now as far as sentences for criminals that flat comes down to the judge. Some states do provide a guide for sentencing.. like 3 to 5 years for armed robbery, etc.. But, the judge still decides.. is it 3 or 4 or 5...

I don't like strict guidelines... I mean say an 80 year old sick man committed a small crime that was only 1 year in jail. That would probably be the last year of his life; therefore, would be SEVERE punishment in comparison to say a 20 year old.

Each circumstance is different and I believe judges should be allowed to adjust the sentences.

Answer 2

As mentioned above, laws differ by state and country, so the same criminal may be punished differently in different jurisdictions.

But there are also many other factors that go into sentencing, which is why sentencing is often an entirely separate stage of the trial, after guilt has been determined. You just don't see that often on TV.

During the sentencing phase, the prosecutor puts on aggravating evidence, asking for the maximum punishment. The defense puts on mitigating evidence, trying to reduce the punishment.

Some common aggravating factors include: was a weapon used, was it fired, were other people treated badly during the crime, prior bad act, wanton cruelty to the victim, etc. Some common mitigating factors: first offense, emotionally troubled (insufficient to be a defense), care was taken to avoid harming anyone, and so on.

Many courts have complex sentencing guidelines listing aggravating and mitigating factors, which are fed into a big formula to determine the actual sentence. Others define a range and leave discretion over the final term to the judge.

Answer 3

Federal sentencing guidelines are spelled out in a big book. The judge can vary little from the rules. State courts have laws, of course, but there is a little more room for judges to make their own decisions. If you're talking about someone who has been convicted, then wins after an appeal, that involves incredible legal work and is by the book. It is not just a whim when someone is granted a new trial or released from prison.

Answer 4

First: the hierarchy of courts.
One court's decision, including a sentencing decision, can be overruled by a higher court on appeal. If one party appeals a case, a higher court will examine the decision made by the lower court, and if that decision is faulty on a point of law, it can be overruled.

Example: say the lower court gives a death sentence and that sentence is appealed by the defendant. If the death sentence wasn't legally available for the crime committed, the higher court would have to change the sentence, because the sentence given was illegal. Or if the death sentence was available, but previous cases show it isnt usually given in cases like the one at hand, it may be overruled.

Second: the law is the same but each case is different.
If you and I both commit theft, the same law is applied to each of our cases. But every case is different. If I stole money from a charity so I could hire a hitman, and you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, obviously the penalties should be different.

I'm very happy to go into more detail if you still dont understand and want to message me.

Answer 5

Judges are human. Most laws give wide discretion to the judge in the matter of sentence. On being found guilty the judge will weigh the gravity of the crime and may sentence a convict from a warning to the maximum jail prescribed in law. some judges are prosecution minded and some are liberal. judiciary does not frown on this aspect.

Answer 6

cops have what's widely used as discretionary capability - meaning they are able to do those issues in the event that they think of the situation calls for. It would not ought to be an emergency requiring 'lighting and sirens' via fact the frequently used public is conscious it, besides the undeniable fact that it ought to require rapid interest on the cops behalf thereby requiring minor site visitors infringements as all of us be responsive to them. As a frequently used rule cops are in simple terms as certain by making use of regulations as the different citizen - saving using emergency and discretionary capability. Edit: person-friendly on the physique of innovations long island. we get the factor - yet, a techniques out what's with the 'tude dude? i'm an Aussie and analyzing your answer i will understand why such lots of people hate cops.

Answer 7

Different states and jurisdictions have different opinions on law.For instance a person could commit a crime in North Dakota that would be a misdemeanor..If they did the same thing in Texas it would be a felony that they could do life for.Hope this helps.

Answer 8

BECAUSE THE EARTH ROTATES AND REVOLVES ALL THE TIME

STUPID, ITS THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FACTS, EVIDENCE AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAWMEN, HIS GRASPING OF THE SITUATION AND THE WAY HE LOOKS INTO THE MATTER

OK

Answer 9

Very good question...I dont know the answer