Ashcroft: "Maximim Pentalies . . no Plea Bargains . . ."

[CaptnKirk]

Lets Throw the Book At Everyone - Get Maximun Sentences

And lets make Jay-Walking a Capital Offense ! This guy is a menace to our society.

Why dosen't he enforce these 'Maximums" against his and Bushes 'Corprate Buddies ?
I would like them to really come down hard on the cheats that robbed the workers and the investors -
Oh, Wait, those are the same Benefactors that bought them their positions in the government,
yeah, O.K. - lets just go after those who can't afford a Million Dollars for a lawyer to get them off.

 

[dmcowen674]

Who says America is any different from the Middle East, it has Ayatollah Ashcroft.

 

[glenn1]

I don't particularly care for Ashcroft either, but he doesn't write the sentencing laws. Whether you're talking about strict application (Ashcroft) or loose application (Reno), they're both playing within the rules. Your ire is more appropriately directed at Congress for leaving such amibiguity in the sentencing guidelines.

 

[digitalsm]

Last I checked there are a wide array of people that have been prosecuted for the buisness scandels last year. I also might add it would be almost next to impossible to take down Ken Lay from a legal stand point.

Several from Enron, several from Worldcom, several from other companies too. Those that were directly responsible, HAVE been indicted and/or convicted. Ken Lay, not matter what the rhetoric was NOT directly responsible for the corprate scandal at Enron.

 

[SuperTool]

_When prosecutors decided that the original charges will be tough to prove in court because of witness access problems, suppressed evidence or some other reason.

It's nice to know that when the US government brings charges against you that they cannot prove, you'll have an option to plea to a lesser charge.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I don't particularly care for Ashcroft either, but he doesn't write the sentencing laws. Whether you're talking about strict application (Ashcroft) or loose application (Reno), they're both playing within the rules. Your ire is more appropriately directed at Congress for leaving such amibiguity in the sentencing guidelines.

Bzzz. The nature of our legal system is ambiguity and discretion. It's the idiocy of mandatory minimums and the like that tie the hands of the judges who are put in place to use their expertise to JUDGE.

Crackpots like Ashcroft who would instruct judges on how they should do their job are just as bad, if not worse, than congress doing the same thing with ironclad sentencing laws. If we wanted uniformity we'd get rid of the human element of the judicial system.

We don't.

 

[glenn1]

If we wanted uniformity we'd get rid of the human element of the judicial system.

We don't.

And if you want ambiguity and judges to have total discretion on sentencing, then you would demand your Congress critter to eliminate sentencing guidelines altogether.

But you don't.


Personally, i prefer guidelines established by elected (and therefore accountable) legislators than by someone with a lifetime appointment that's not accountable to anyone. Especially since the Judicial branch already claims the right of Judicial review.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: glenn1

If we wanted uniformity we'd get rid of the human element of the judicial system.

We don't.

And if you want ambiguity and judges to have total discretion on sentencing, then you would demand your Congress critter to eliminate sentencing guidelines altogether.

But you don't.

No, but I would, and I should. If only I had the time or the means or the drive, but, alas, I don't. I'd say the most creative and effective solutions to criminality and recitivism are creative sentencing and judicial discretion. IMO, judges are by definition on a higher plane of existence than politicians. With a few excuses, as always, but I'd much rather have sentencing guidelines in the hands of judges than of politicians...

 

[glenn1]

IMO, judges are by definition on a higher plane of existence than politicians. With a few excuses, as always, but I'd much rather have sentencing guidelines in the hands of judges than of politicians...

So what's the point in having a Legislative branch then?

 

[burnedout]

I could have sworn the report on NPR today said that plea bargaining would still be part of the process.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: glenn1

IMO, judges are by definition on a higher plane of existence than politicians. With a few excuses, as always, but I'd much rather have sentencing guidelines in the hands of judges than of politicians...

So what's the point in having a Legislative branch then?

To create laws. Leave sentencing to the judicial branch.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: glenn1

IMO, judges are by definition on a higher plane of existence than politicians. With a few excuses, as always, but I'd much rather have sentencing guidelines in the hands of judges than of politicians...

So what's the point in having a Legislative branch then?

To create laws. Leave sentencing to the judicial branch.

Yes - the Judicial Branch follows the sentencing guidlines set forth by the legislative branch - the only branch that has the power to write such law(well....the only one that is supposed to)

CkG

 

[dahunan]

Maybe Asscroft could change the rules in Baseball while he is at it "Two Strikes and You're Out"

Where was ASScroft when the Religious Priests were raping little boys at the Altar?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Bzzz. The nature of our legal system is ambiguity and discretion. It's the idiocy of mandatory minimums and the like that tie the hands of the judges who are put in place to use their expertise to JUDGE.

Crackpots like Ashcroft who would instruct judges on how they should do their job are just as bad, if not worse, than congress doing the same thing with ironclad sentencing laws. If we wanted uniformity we'd get rid of the human element of the judicial system.

We don't.

bzzz... its congress's right to write sentencing laws. congress has lots of power over the judicial branch.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Maybe Asscroft could change the rules in Baseball while he is at it "Two Strikes and You're Out"

Where was ASScroft when the Religious Priests were raping little boys at the Altar?

did that violate federal laws? no. they violated state laws. ashcroft has no power over state prosecutors. please learn how the gov't functions.

 

[Lucky]

"Maximim [sic] Pentalies [sic] . . no Plea Bargains . . ."

Where did this quote come from?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Maybe Asscroft could change the rules in Baseball while he is at it "Two Strikes and You're Out"

Where was ASScroft when the Religious Priests were raping little boys at the Altar?

Most of the high-profile priest allegations happened 10-30 years ago.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: glenn1

If we wanted uniformity we'd get rid of the human element of the judicial system.

We don't.

And if you want ambiguity and judges to have total discretion on sentencing, then you would demand your Congress critter to eliminate sentencing guidelines altogether.

But you don't.

No, but I would, and I should. If only I had the time or the means or the drive, but, alas, I don't. I'd say the most creative and effective solutions to criminality and recitivism are creative sentencing and judicial discretion. IMO, judges are by definition on a higher plane of existence than politicians. With a few excuses, as always, but I'd much rather have sentencing guidelines in the hands of judges than of politicians...

Wrong, they are on the same plane and should be. It's called checks and balances.