2006-09-01 12:23:55 · 11 answers · asked by SPEAK UP WAKE UP 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Mandatory minimums in sentencing do not help society... Determining appropriate punishment and duration of prison terms is something for Judges to do, not for the District Attorney's office to decide by filing charges that carry specific mandated prison terms.
Minimum sentencing requirements can backfire and lead to juries finding "Not Guilty" in cases where a "Guilty " verdict would be right just because the accused is young, or likeable or the jury for some reason does not want to see that person sentenced to life.
Let the DA file charges
Let the Jury determine Guilt or Innocence
and
Let Judges decide sentencing.
Please take our criminal justice system out of the hands of politicians.
2006-09-02 02:25:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Would it matter? What is the difference really? If you get 25 years, or 50, or as some cases say 200 years, when they have multiples. The average adult, spending 25 years in prison, will mostlikely die in prison. So wheres the diff from 25 or 200? This being based on the 25 to life theory. 25 will result in life. Even if the 25 were survived, which OK, for conversation, opon release the prisioner will be un-employabe, un-educated, and socially and economically behind. Ultimitly, resulting in starvation, homelessness, drugs, (if there are any in25 years) therefore their life ending in suffering and slow death. So, in lame tems, of the jury says 75, and the judge reduces to 50, what reall difference is it? (sorry for typos, not retyping ;) )
2006-09-01 19:48:57 · answer #2 · answered by lasttruediva 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There generally is. Most states set the sentences, based on specific factors or fixed terms.
And anything that is a factual determination, such as aggravating factors, fed into a sentencing formula must be determined by the jury. That was decided by the Supreme Court last year.
The only discretion a judge has is where that discretion is expressly provided in the statute, and it cannot be based on factual determinations, only questions of law.
{EDIT to nebulasleuth} Actually, murder is almost universally a state crime, not a federal one, with very few exceptions. Check the laws in questions.
2006-09-01 19:31:39 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Life in prison with no chance of parole for pre-meditated murder.
A set number of years for "murders of passion" - or non-pre-meditated.
A set number of years for manslaughter. Although I'm amenable to this being set by a judge or jury based on circumstances because there was no intent to kill. Still must be punished, but there are different levels of neglect involved.
2006-09-01 19:28:52 · answer #4 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We tried that with drugs and it was ruled unconstitutional. As it is, it's left to the states. The expenses for keeping a person in prison for life is just too much of a burden, so the government says.
2006-09-01 19:26:27 · answer #5 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes but only in capital murder cases where the jury issues the death penelty. Otherwise the judge has absolute discretion in sentencing
2006-09-01 21:31:35 · answer #6 · answered by illusionaryr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do longer prison terms deter criminals? The US has the longest prison sentences, but our violent crime problem is still one of the worst.
2006-09-01 19:26:59 · answer #7 · answered by martin h 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-09-01 19:25:44 · answer #8 · answered by Brin 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is. Murder is a federal offense, and there are mandatory minimum sentences. Of course the mandatory minimum depends on whether it was first degree, second degree, man slaughter, etc...
2006-09-01 19:28:14 · answer #9 · answered by nebulasleuth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. We have educated our judges to use their judgement.
2006-09-01 19:26:11 · answer #10 · answered by kobacker59 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋