Go Back   Marijuana.com > News > The Drug War Headline News
Register FAQ Gaming VB Image Host Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-27-2006, 10:20 AM   #1
PotShot
Sr. Member
 
PotShot's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 925
Grams: 3,658.76
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
PotShot can see the Karmic Tunnel of Life
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default WI: Discretion where it belongs

Discretion where it belongs
Editorial | Journal Sentinel | March 26, 2006

Early last year, the nation's top court changed how federal judges set the sentences they issued. Before the Supreme Court decided United States vs. Booker, judges had to fit sentences within specific limits. Afterward, they could treat those limits as suggestions, not mandates.

The switch served the cause of justice. The federal mandatory minimums led to too many unfair sentences, far out of proportion to the crime. But that imbalance didn't happen to be the reason the Supreme Court struck down the mandatory nature of the sentencing guidelines.

Rather, the court faulted the sentencing scheme because it had a judge doing what is rightly a jury's work - that is, finding whether elements of the crime were present that could lengthen sentences. So it's possible to restore the mandates in such a way as not to upset the high court. In fact, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Menomonee Falls Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, is hinting he will seek to do just that.

He mustn't. The old system straitjacketed judges too much, such as Utah's U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, known as a hard-line conservative. He lamented from the bench that he had no choice but to put a first-time offender in prison for 55 years for dealing marijuana. Justice demands that judges be allowed to exercise discretion. Otherwise, you may as well replace him or her with a computer program.

The rationale behind mandatory sentencing is that it keeps punishment uniform. But it only seems to do so. It simply transfers discretion from the judge to the prosecutor, who exercises it by choosing which charges to bring or whether to bring any at all. Prosecutors use the draconian sentences as a club to extract plea bargains.

The system allows U.S. attorneys to dish out leniency in exchange for cooperation. Thus, suspects with much information to trade can get light sentences. One consequence is that drug ringleaders have gotten much shorter sentences than defendants only tangentially connected to the ring, such as a leader's girlfriend, since the latter has little information to swap. Giving the judge discretion can prevent such injustices.

In a report delivered to the Judiciary Committee last week, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that judges have conformed with sentencing guidelines 86% of the time - compared with 91% during one period before Booker and 94% during another period. (Judges could deviate from the guidelines under special circumstances.) In other words, the difference pre- and post-Booker isn't stark. Also, on average, the sentences have been slightly longer since the ruling.

Judges are by and large heeding the guidelines. Yet they retain the ability to depart from them in the interest of justice. Congress mustn't take that flexibility away again.
PotShot is offline Award PotShot Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Old 03-29-2006, 03:44 AM   #2
dedbr
DEAD BEAR
 
dedbr's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,031
Grams: 61,230.05
Groans: 12
Groaned at 25 Times in 16 Posts
dedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputationdedbr Is bogarting the reputation
Thanks: 2,564
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,067 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Cool This is an interesting debate, really.....

the judicial feels like their hands are tied , and the prosecuting attorneys see it sometimes as the judge being too soft.

Their right about this tho, it can be a real kitty on the first timer facing a mandatory minimum for some bullkite offense.



Quote:
The old system straitjacketed judges too much, such as Utah's U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, known as a hard-line conservative. He lamented from the bench that he had no choice but to put a first-time offender in prison for 55 years for dealing marijuana. Justice demands that judges be allowed to exercise discretion. Otherwise, you may as well replace him or her with a computer program.
But the flipside is, an offender can be put in jail for the same crime not just once, but several times, for the same offense! That is how "parole" is equal to "double jeopardy."



If they puts me in there for 55 years, I'm gonna turn the whole place into Ded Land, and it's not going to be nothin' but clown love, 24/7.

After about twenty years, I'll be the wardens secretary, so I'll be runnin' the booby hatch anyway. So, depending on how weak minded and pathetic the warden is, I could be in charge of most of the compound.


Uh, no. I'm just kidding. That couldn't happen, no way.

Nothin' but clown love, though......

Ded
__________________
"Starry, starry night, Paint your pallet blue and gray, Look out on a summers day,
With eyes that know the darkness of my soul, Shadows on the hills, Sketch the trees and the daffodils, Catch the breeze and the winter chill, In colors in the snowy linen land......"

Vincent.... Don Mclean


Posting Guidelines!
dedbr is offline Award dedbr Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:08 AM.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52