She's one of those naïve "we can rehabilitate everyone" types. I can't disagree with her though because I dislike mandatory sentencing in general. Not all cases are equal. That's why sentencing exists in the first place.
Whether it is a good idea is a separate matter. Should the lives of people be in the hands of judges playing god based on very limited information, and guessing and speculating about the extent to which his unhappy childhood had an impact on his crime?
I say no.
Ironic because mandatory sentencing theoretically removes some potential for racial bias in sentencing by making sure no one receives undue leniency.
Not gonna work of course. The 'racial bias' they complain about is a difference in the commission of offenses. But since they can't fix that part, they just want to release people until the numbers are proportional.
Sentencing maximums are fine. Sentencing minimums are not
Seems to me to be two sides of the same coin. If judges having more discretion to play god is good, why should there be a sentencing maximum?
It's the big league version of "zero tolerance" policies in school. Kid brings a combat knife to school intending to stab someone: expelled. Mom put a butter knife in a kid's lunch bag: expelled.
No, I don't think so. Mens rea is clearly lacking in the second case, so the analogy is flawed from the beginning. There is good reason to establish a minimum for crimes such as child molestation. What good is there to making sure that judges can go easy on a pedophile because of his unhappy childhood? It's stupid.
Jury Sentencing is a thing in some places but judge playing god with limited information or jury playing god with limited information, a more emotional state, and minimal knowledge of precedent... I think the judge is probably the lesser problem.
Judges are an enormous problem, at least here in Europe. A maximum sentence can be 20 years, and the average sentence will be 1 year.
Strawman. The judge having discretion to play god is not what it is good. The capability to show leniency when the circumstances deserve it is good.
You like to cite fallacies, yet you engage in a big 'begging the question' here. I question that judges in an overworked court system have any ability at all to try to divine 'when the circumstances deserve it'. That is playing god, and they're really bad at it, with disastrous results for actual innocents who become the victims of their criminal-hugging.
Also, you don't seem to know what a strawman is. It follows logically from your argument, that judges having more discretion is good, that it would also be good for them to be able to be harsher. Why is it only good for them to be able to be more lenient?
To channel another poster for a moment. Imagine a vindictive woman accusing her ex-husband of child molestation with little evidence. Maybe he spanked the kid once or something, but she cries convincingly enough and the jury decides he's guilty of something. You think it's reasonable for that to jump straight to "life in prison" with no sentencing flexibility? That a scenario like that and a pedo abusing a kid with video evidence should play out the same way?
Here in Europe, judges determine guilt, not juries. It's clearly that your case should be overturned for lack of sufficient material evidence. If your legal system is convicting innocents, you have a bigger problem than sentencing lengths.
What I object to is a pedo with video evidence being let off with a lenient sentence, because a judge decides that he had an unhappy childhood. Judges should not have such powers.
Judges are an enormous problem, at least here in Europe.
In Australia too. Adrian Ernest Bayley was a serial rapist on parole when he raped and murdered Jill Meagher. The Victorian government's response was to suppress discussion of the government's role in allowing her to be murdered.
Whether it is a good idea is a separate matter. Should the lives of people be in the hands of judges playing god based on very limited information, and guessing and speculating about the extent to which his unhappy childhood had an impact on his crime?
I say no.
Not gonna work of course. The 'racial bias' they complain about is a difference in the commission of offenses. But since they can't fix that part, they just want to release people until the numbers are proportional.
Seems to me to be two sides of the same coin. If judges having more discretion to play god is good, why should there be a sentencing maximum?
No, I don't think so. Mens rea is clearly lacking in the second case, so the analogy is flawed from the beginning. There is good reason to establish a minimum for crimes such as child molestation. What good is there to making sure that judges can go easy on a pedophile because of his unhappy childhood? It's stupid.
Judges are an enormous problem, at least here in Europe. A maximum sentence can be 20 years, and the average sentence will be 1 year.
You like to cite fallacies, yet you engage in a big 'begging the question' here. I question that judges in an overworked court system have any ability at all to try to divine 'when the circumstances deserve it'. That is playing god, and they're really bad at it, with disastrous results for actual innocents who become the victims of their criminal-hugging.
Also, you don't seem to know what a strawman is. It follows logically from your argument, that judges having more discretion is good, that it would also be good for them to be able to be harsher. Why is it only good for them to be able to be more lenient?
Here in Europe, judges determine guilt, not juries. It's clearly that your case should be overturned for lack of sufficient material evidence. If your legal system is convicting innocents, you have a bigger problem than sentencing lengths.
What I object to is a pedo with video evidence being let off with a lenient sentence, because a judge decides that he had an unhappy childhood. Judges should not have such powers.
In Australia too. Adrian Ernest Bayley was a serial rapist on parole when he raped and murdered Jill Meagher. The Victorian government's response was to suppress discussion of the government's role in allowing her to be murdered.