Thoughts on mandatory Federal Sentencing...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
My knee-jerk reaction, *BEFORE* even reading, was that across-the-board mandatory sentencing was a bad idea, and that employing a 'guideline' was probably more appropriate. I mean, what's the point in having a court hear your case at all, if it isn't because extenuating circumstances shape the case beyond guilt or innocence?
I guess I thought part of the process wasn't just "did he do it?" but "yes, he did it, but this is the whole story". Which is why, from my understanding, a jury determination aided by federal guidelines seems to be best.
To no surprise, this was the same opinion held by the more conservative judges on the Supreme Court.
I guess I thought part of the process wasn't just "did he do it?" but "yes, he did it, but this is the whole story". Which is why, from my understanding, a jury determination aided by federal guidelines seems to be best.
To no surprise, this was the same opinion held by the more conservative judges on the Supreme Court.
I still think we should have professional juries instead of Joe Blow off the street.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I know you've said this before - but this flies in the face of what a lot of conservatives believe.vraiblonde said:
*Liberals* believe that people are too stupid to think for themselves, and need the government or professionals to do their thinking for them. Conservatives generally believe that a little chaos is ok so long as people make their own decisions.
Having professional jurors sounds too socialistic to me.
As chaotic as juries are, I prefer the current chaos to what might happen should "professional jurors" of one political philosophy take over.
You already know I think most people are too stupid to think for themselves. And I gots me some evidence to back it up! Namely, the Letters to the Editor section of the Washington Post!SamSpade said:
What about elected jurors? Get a certain number of them so there will be enough, pay them a fair wage and make this their full-time job.
Professional juries hired by the county doesn't upset me. No offense to all you volunteers out there, but I've coordinated enough fundraisers and worked with enough charitable orgs to know that volunteers aren't necessarily the best people for the job.
Plus you run into situations where the trial goes on for months, which puts pressure on jurists with their jobs and families.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
So imagine a county where the professional jurors are all dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, and they have a virtual lock on the office, due to the party strength in the area. Voters continue to send them back to the jury booth, even in lieu of poor results - or perhaps, BECAUSE of it.vraiblonde said:
How about corrupt jurors - ones that profit greatly from being a permanent jury - overturning or hanging high profile cases, because they're taking bribes, continually?
How about all academia law school type nerds sitting on juries - instead of average Joe's, who have a one-sided view of the world? You know, like your basic lobbyist?
Nope. I'll take your average stupid twit. The other type is too easy to manipulate.
Will of the people. If a community wants a bunch of criminals running around their neighborhoods, more power to 'em.SamSpade said:
If they get caught, they face the penalty. I'm not talking about a "permanent" jury, anyway. They go up for re-election every few years or whatever. Or they are like any other employee - if they're doing their job in a satisfactory manner, they stay on. Otherwise they hit the breadline. This wouldn't be like judges or the Supreme Court - it would be a paid position like any other government employee.
It would surprise me if any of those guys would take a career step down to become a professional juror. And the chances that you'd get a whole box of 12 professors and lobbyists in any given county are slim to none.
I'll tell you something else: I'll bet counties with known tough juries would see a dramatic crime reduction.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
SamSpade said:
Great point! And now maybe you just found new targets for all of those low-yield battlefield tactical nukes that we have had laying about since the end of the Cold War.
I think this is another chicken and egg issue. We have mandatory sentencing because there was no standards for judges to use, or be held accountable to, when sentencing criminals. Now we're eliminating the need for these standards because the judges don't like them and they want more freedom in sentencing. And I would bet that in about ten years someone will come up with the great new idea of imposing mandatory minumum sentencing guidelines to curb the problem of inconsistent sentencing.
And the World keeps on turning...