If a defendant is found guilty, should the judge be the one to decide what the sentence is?

Question

I wish to find out how many people agree with me. I don't think the judge should make the decision. He is only one person and he may be prejudiced. I saw a program where a young lady shot her stepfather to death because he had been sexually abusing her since she was a little girl. She was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to life in prison. Maybe the judge was sexually abusing his daughter! From my point of view this was a justifiable homicide.

Answer 1

Well as with a case like this, the person would have been found guilty by a trial with a jury.

So...

Police arrest
Jury find guilty
Judge ???

If he is not to decide the sentence, what (exactly) is his role?

Mark

Answer 2

The judge usually has limitations over what they can and cannot do within the boundaries of law. They are individuals and some may be more lenient than others but if an individual is found guilty of a crime by a jury then they have to hand down a sentence to reflect that crime having taken into account the evidence presented.

There may have been other factors in the crime you mentioned which meant that they felt such a sentence was felt to be justified. Was it a premeditated and cold blooded murder (even though there was sexual abuse involved)? Was the sexual abuse proven. All factors which must be taken into consideration.

Answer 3

That's the judge's job. He makes rulings interpreting the law, and he imposes sentences within the bounds set by the law.

Some states have specific sentences in the statute, and the judge has very little discretion. Some states (and the federal govt) have broad ranges, and judge have significant discretion. That's just a function of how the laws are written

Some laws require a jury to vote on the sentence, especially in capital punishment cases. But that's also just a function of how the law is written.

In the example you gave, a jury found the person guilty of murder, and did not acquit based on justifiable homicide. So, once the jury has found the person guilty of murder, in the eyes of the law that person is a murdered, and should be sentenced within the limits imposed by the statute.

If you don't like the laws in your state, and want the judge to have less discretion or want the jury to impose the sentence, then lobby to get the laws changed. That's how it works.

Answer 4

There are laws and rules for the judges as well as anyone else. They should only sentence a person ordained by the law. Some judges add their personal feelings to the jur's findings and that is absolutely wrong.

Answer 5

The choose makes findings of regulation (what data may be admitted, what questions are allowable, etc). In a jury trial, the jury makes findings of fact. They evaluate the data and confirm what's authentic (substitute into it too darkish at 7:36 p.m. on a cloudy Sunday for the witness to % out the accused from around the line?). The choose will supply the jury particular training on deliberations..."in case you come across that X and Y took place, your verdict could be responsible. in case you come across that in simple terms X or Y took place, or that neither took place, your verdict could be not responsible." The choose truly breaks it down for the jury so their real judgements will bring about a legally suitable verdict.

Answer 6

humans are always open to prejudice, and jury selection makes damn sure this is a factor.

pro: a judge knows the rule of law and precedents applicable, is considered less emotionally attached and therefore less likely to issue a kneejerk reaction, and is also familiar with the pitfalls of incarceration, recidivism etc.

con: like you say, a judge is one person and some of them have made dangerously prejudiced rulings and comments. But they are also more able to be held accountable for prejudice, their rulings are made public and they have more to lose than a jury.
They are also politically appointed and this can affect some outcomes.

Answer 7

The defendant usually can make the choice to have a jury trial or not. In that case it would not be up to the judge. If they do not want a jury, then judge would decide. I tend to agree with you in that it shouldn't be up to only one person to decide the fate of another.

Answer 8

I disagree,keep in mind, the judge is a tool of the rule of law. Agreed its not perfect,just the best that weve come up with. This is a sad case, however the law requires accountability of such behavior,in this case,it seems harse and im sure reasons and facts are considered.

Answer 9

I always thought they everyone is titled to a jury of our own make up. I think that the jury's final outcome should be withheld or at lest to make stricter by the judge if needed.