Ashcroft Orders Strict Reporting of Judges that levy sentences below Federal Minimum Guidelines

[tnitsuj]

From Washingtonpost.com

He want's to cut down on judges using thier own discretion in sentencing.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
From Washingtonpost.com

He want's to cut down on judges using thier own discretion in sentencing.

I was talking with a federal circuit court judge, I didn't know this, but they have legal sentences they have to use, like they can't say anywhere from 3-35 years for an offense, if they did the crime, the law in many cases legally binds th judge to giving a certain punishment. That is why a lot of times if possible the trial will be held in state court where they don't have these restrictions, like drugs etc.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Mandatory mins are BS. If a judge cuts a bunch of lowlifes loose, he/she should be removed. The biggest problem with the judiciary is meddling by the legislators.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Mandatory mins are BS. If a judge cuts a bunch of lowlifes loose, he/she should be removed. The biggest problem with the judiciary is meddling by the legislators.

No, the biggest problem is that bias of judges who flaunt the law based on their personal beliefs instead of enforcing punishments based on the law of the legislature -- a blatant slap in the face against the balance of powers. Case in point, a former (think he either died or stepped down finally) senior federal judge in Nashville absolutely refused to allow a federal death penalty to be imposed because he did not agree with it. I'll have to do some mental digging, but I think his name was Dixon. Seems to me that the judge should mete out the law as it's written not as he wants to.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Not to make this a death penalty thread but given a choice between the lengthy appeals/expense of death penalty cases and life imprisonment . . . life makes more sense from financial and moral terms. Life is either a gift that no human has the right to remove or it's negotiable. If it's negotiable (which we all know is the case) then any BS set of rules is just as valid as the next. That's not relativism . . . it's just the nature of dealing with people and all the BS they believe in.

Mandatory mins are BS. But you are certainly right that judges should execute the law to the extent it can be done without having to interpret the law. Unfortunately, dumb arse legislators write poo law all the time . . . then they get pissed off when judges inform them about the difference between what the law means and what the legislators intended.