judge sentencing judiciary
What happens if a judge disregards a mandatory minimal sentencing law?
<p>What happens if a judge disregards the mandatory minimum sentence and sentences the convicted to time served or some other lesser amount of time? Would this judgement be binding? What would happen to challange it, and would the judge face prosecution and if so -- by who?</p>
<p>Just to be clear, <strong>I'm not concerned about a judge that would cooperate or did so by accident. I'm concerned with remedies available to the state if a judge refuses to cooperate.</strong> Let's assume a judge refuses to impose a sentence (fails to apply) and isn't stupid (No self incrimination or reason to believe there was a bribe, coruption, or familial connection).</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<p>Minimum sentencing laws do not prescribe any punishment for a judge that simply refuses to obey them. See 18 U.S. Code § 3553 as an example that explains how sentencing must be enforced, yet no mention of punishments for violating these laws. It also makes mention of how minimum sentencing can be avoided by a judge lawfully as well.</p>
<p>Judges do not risk jail time or fines for breaking these laws, as they have judicial discretion, which is literally a power defined by what it means to be a judge, to hand out whatever sentence they think is appropriate. <em>(Note: there may be exceptions, but I couldn't find any. If any such examples exist, they are likely rare)</em></p>
<p>If a judge refuses to hand out an appropriate sentence by these laws, there are options available. The two main choices are by review, and by appeal. The review board has a few options. They can accept the lower sentence, they can reject the sentence to have the judge resentence, or they can assign the sentencing to a different judge. By way of appeal, the prosecutors can choose to appeal to a higher court. Eventually, either the sentence will become fixed at the reduced level, or it will be corrected by someone else in the system, if not the judge, then either an associate or superior.</p>
<p>Either way, the odds are stacked against a rebel judge. However, at least one documented example of this exists, the story of Judge John Coughenour (linked below). He sentenced the same person three times for the same crime, and while he eventually did get a &quot;victory,&quot; the story goes to demonstrate that (a) judges can rebel and get some effect, and (b) even as hard as he fought, he wasn't punished, but he also didn't get nearly the effect he was hoping for, despite a promise from the government to reduce the criminal's sentence in exchange for cooperation.</p>
<p>While judges can be censured, reprimanded, removed from office, voted out (at least, at lower levels), and impeached, most of these punishments are reserved for situations of corruption, bribery, etc, rather than simply executing their judiciary discretion, which is one of the core powers granted to them by the judicial branch.</p>
<p>Further Reading:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/one-judge-makes-the-case-for-judgment/463380/" rel="noreferrer">One judge makes the case for judgment</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553" rel="noreferrer">18 U.S. Code § 3553 - Imposition of a sentence</a></li>
</ul>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/new-zealand" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;" rel="tag">new-zealand</a></p>
<p>The prosecutor <em>may</em> <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360484.html" rel="noreferrer">appeal</a> on the question of law whether the judge erred in not imposing the minimum sentence.</p>
<p>The appeal court <em>may</em> agree and order the original court (not directly the judge) to reconsider. Or it may even <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360489.html" rel="noreferrer">directly correct the sentence</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) A first appeal court must determine a first appeal under this subpart
by—</p>
<p>(c) varying or substituting the sentence or remitting the sentence to the
sentencing court with directions, if the decision relates to sentence
and the court thinks the decision is erroneous</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Where remitted to the original court, it now <em>may</em> impose the minimum sentence. Or make another error of law.</p>
<p>Judges enjoy a great deal of immunity. Unless there is evidence that the judge acted in bad faith (e.g. received a bribe), nothing will happen to them apart from perhaps some ego irritation.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag">england-and-wales</a></p>
<p>The Crown Prosecution Service page here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/unduly-lenient-sentences" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Unduly Lenient Sentences</strong></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>defines</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Meaning of 'Unduly Lenient'</strong></p>
<p>...<br />
This includes cases <strong>where judges err in law</strong> as to their powers of sentencing (section 36(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) or <strong>fail to impose a sentence required</strong> by the following provisions:<br />
...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and sets out the procedures and time limits for appeal by the prosecution.</p>
<p>As for the intention of the original judge, I don't think they would have the power to obstruct, so their intention is irrelevant. It is not the original judge who reviews the sentence, but the Court of Appeal.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<p>In especially egregious cases, the judges may be forced to resign.  E.g., two West Virginia judges resigned as part of their agreement with the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission.  In this case, the two judges were giving overly lenient sentences (or rather, outright dismissing cases) in return for charitable donations as part of a holiday ticket program.</p>
<p>When the donation scheme started, it was only used for speeding and similar offenses.  However, the program was later used for criminal cases like DUIs (including 2nd offenses).</p>
