How do you feel about minimum sentences?

Question

They have been active since the late 80's. Minimum sentences lock people up w/o any evidence and only a testomony is needed to lock that person up.

Answer 1

As guilty as the person may be, i still think that people should not be sentenced to prison without actual proof/evidence.
there has been many innocent people sent to prison just because a jury doesn't like the way the guy/girl looks.
i am sure there were many people who were nervous and could not control the tone of there voice while talking to the judge, therefore making the suspect seem guilty.
people are never 100%.
i do believe that the accused should be monitored until the facts prove otherwise, but to sentence a human being without evidence is going against the whole reason of what a free country stands for.

Answer 2

I suspect that misstates what minimum sentences are. Minimum sentences only apply after a conviction, and even then only if other objective criteria are met. Testimony, by the way, IS evidence.

Answer 3

Wrong. If a person is convicted of a crime, he should do the time. If a trial is held and the jury is persuaded that the defendant did the crime, he is found guilty and he gets sentenced. That's the way the legal system works.

Answer 4

Unless you are in Texas, I do not think you are corrcet on the way minimum sentences are imposed.

However, minimum sentences are a terrible idea, and lead to obvious injustices.

Answer 5

not sure what minimum sentence is but locking people up only on testimony is wrong, and unhumane!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

i think they are great, do your research.