Mandatory Minimums

[Pvt. Stash]

Is there a greater evil ? (rhetorical)


1st degree murder
child molestation
elder abuse an
arson


no mandatory minimums...


But OMG if you grow a few pot plants....Watch Out you Social Deviant!!!

 

[Suddenly]

Is there a greater evil ? (rhetorical)


1st degree murder
child molestation
elder abuse an
arson


no mandatory minimums...


But OMG if you grow a few pot plants....Watch Out you Social Deviant!!!

Care to elaborate? What jurisdiction are you talking about?

 

[Tmy]

I think all those have mandatory mins. Ive never haerd of someone getting probation for 1st degree murder.

I hate mand mins, there can always be cases that have mitigating cicumstances.

 

[Richard G]

I hate mand mins, there can always be cases that have mitigating cicumstances.

And then there is the bleeding heart judge who is not impartial, and thinks the criminal has more rights than the victim, letting them off easy. Then they commit the same offense again after they let em go. DUH!

I DEMAND mandatory sentences from my elected leaders.

 

[Suddenly]

And then there is the bleeding heart judge who is not impartial, and thinks the criminal has more rights than the victim, letting them off easy. Then they commit the same offense again after they let em go. DUH!

I DEMAND mandatory sentences from my elected leaders.

Yep. You know much better than a judge. One of them might do something you don't like so we better just waste all our tax money by putting everyone in jail whether they really need to go or not. No big deal that some of them become criminals due to the jail experience. They also learn the cold logic of why, given drastic sentencing structures, they are better off leaving no witnesses.

Nice use of all caps by the way. At first I was skeptical of your point but your masterful use of the "shift" key has made me see the light.

 

[Andonyx]

I DEMAND mandatory sentences from my elected leaders.

This is ridiculous, then why have a judge?

Why not have the entire thing handled by civil servants using large sentencing tables.

Each case involves any number of circumstances and must be judged individually.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Mandatory minimums will allow the eventual abolishment of judges. I could easily write a script/macro/program that would replace the sentencing phase of a trial using the mandatory requirements imposed on judges.

Charlie (out of work programmer) Monoxide

 

[AmateurScientist]

Yep. You know much better than a judge. One of them might do something you don't like so we better just waste all our tax money by putting everyone in jail whether they really need to go or not. No big deal that some of them become criminals due to the jail experience. They also learn the cold logic of why, given drastic sentencing structures, they are better off leaving no witnesses.

Agreed. Not to mention that a criminal defendant who is facing a mandatory life sentence due to having too many prior convictions will usually simply take off and become a fugitive. Now there's a good way to keep him off the streets.

Never mind that mandatory minimums mean bargaining is often off the table, so that defendants are essentially forced to insist on having a trial because no rational alternative exists.

(Not directed at you, Suddenly)

Few outside the criminal justice system truly appreciate how much our courts rely upon negotiated guilty pleas to continue functioning. I don't have statistics in front of me, and I simply don't care to research it, but more than 90% of criminal cases in local, state, and federal courts are resolved by some sort of bargaining and guilty plea. If they weren't, and all criminal cases went to trial, the already overburdened criminal courts would shut down almost overnight.

With new accuseds being arrested every day and old cases backing up due to a lack of court resources to try them fast enough, the system would simply shut down under its own weight. The result would be no convictions and thus no incarcerations. Criminals would literally be free from the possibility of long term punishment.

I suggest thinking more of the systemic consequences before proposing extremist or thoughtless solutions. Of course, that never stopped Congress or any state legislature, did it?

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

This is ridiculous, then why have a judge?

Why not have the entire thing handled by civil servants using large sentencing tables.

Each case involves any number of circumstances and must be judged individually.

Yes, this is precisely the point made by critics of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, including nearly all federal district judge and most federal prosecutors. No one likes the inflexible and hard to administer guidelines in the federal system. The problem is in getting Congress to repeal them. In addition to the guidelines, there are statutory mandatory minimums which are inflexible as well.

At the state level, we have the same problem, although nothing comparable to the guidelines really exists. Mandatory minimums for drug offenses and for repeat offenders are a real problem, however. They create perverse incentives and disincentives for defendants affected by them.

AS

 

[Jocko]

Yep. You know much better than a judge. One of them might do something you don't like so we better just waste all our tax money by putting everyone in jail whether they really need to go or not.

It seems to me if they can classify crimes, and subsets within those crimes (i.e. manslaughter vs. premeditated murder), then they ought to be able to classify matching penalties.

It's not like anyone is ever found "sorta guilty but not really." Any ameliorating circumstances ought to be reflected in the kind of conviction, don't you think?

No big deal that some of them become criminals due to the jail experience. They also learn the cold logic of why, given drastic sentencing structures, they are better off leaving no witnesses.

This falls under the "rights of the criminal" argument, in my opinion. Plus, if we are to believe that the death penalty doesn't deter crime (as if that were its function?), why should we think criminals would have the forethought to eliminate witnesses - when conventional reason says they don't have the forethought to consider the severity of the penalty?

Nice use of all caps by the way. At first I was skeptical of your point but your masterful use of the "shift" key has made me see the light.

Can't argue with that...

 

[Suddenly]

It seems to me if they can classify crimes, and subsets within those crimes (i.e. manslaughter vs. premeditated murder), then they ought to be able to classify matching penalties.

Which is what a mandantory scheme tries to do. However, as the USSR found out, centralized control really doesn't work. There are too many variables involved to apply justice from a simple formula.

It's not like anyone is ever found "sorta guilty but not really." Any ameliorating circumstances ought to be reflected in the kind of conviction, don't you think?

Not really practical. Some violations of law are worse than others, questions of criminal history etc.

This falls under the "rights of the criminal" argument, in my opinion. Plus, if we are to believe that the death penalty doesn't deter crime (as if that were its function?), why should we think criminals would have the forethought to eliminate witnesses - when conventional reason says they don't have the forethought to consider the severity of the penalty?

Has nothing to do with rights, it has to do with my tax money and stupid things being done with it. Plus, where does the death penalty come into it? The point is that it benefits no one for some people to go to jail, both in expense, and that the dehumanizing experience tends to encourage criminal behaviour. There are people smart enough to realize and cold hearted enough to act rationally. If they are going to get life for an armed robbery, or life for murder, might as well kill the guy as to get rid of a witness and make being caught less likely. I only say that because I've heard people tell me that is exactly what they were thinking. Not all criminals are smart enough to recognize, but some are. I've had on a number of occasions had occasion to talk to a rapist or robber who told me "considering the sentence I got, I should have just killed her/him. They'd have never caught me.

Mandatory minnimums and harsh (or illogical) sentencing schemes create perverse incentives.

 

[Richard G]

The jury is your judge. The judge ensures you have a fair trial. The legistature, who makes the laws, also defines the punishment. The people elect the legitlature.

Its the best justice system in the world. Bad judges are the only thing that taints the system.

 

[AmateurScientist]

The jury is your judge. The judge ensures you have a fair trial. The legistature, who makes the laws, also defines the punishment. The people elect the legitlature.

Its the best justice system in the world. Bad judges are the only thing that taints the system.

In most states and in most federal courts (military courts are a notable exception), juries do not sentence convicted defendants. Judges usually sentence those found guilty.

I agree that we have the best judicial system. I disagree with your implication that judges are "bad" simply because they may have differing views or approaches towards appropriate punishments. The philosophy behind having judges determine appropriate punishment is that they are in the best position to assess the relative merits of each case on a case-by-case basis and to draw upon their training and experience in deciding upon an appropriate sentence in each case. Sentencing by legislature on a one-size-fits-all basis tosses that sound philosophy out the window and replaces it with rigid nonsense.

AS

 

[Andonyx]

It seems to me if they can classify crimes, and subsets within those crimes (i.e. manslaughter vs. premeditated murder), then they ought to be able to classify matching penalties.

So a woman in rage who shoots the person who molested her child should face the same mandatory sentencing as someone who kills someone in a bar-room brawl?

They would both face non-premeditated murder charges.

In fact if the man in the fist-fight can demonstrate that death was not his intent he could have his charge reduced while to woman could not....