should judges be given the discretion to sentence convicted felons without guidelines?
455735
No, sentencing guidelines are carefully scrutinized in order to avoid problems with cruel and unusual punishment.
709947
I do not want to second guess the judge - who had more complete information- on his decision. So long as the criminal is in jail and is not likely to be released in his lifetime, I am o.k. with the judge's decision.\n\ncc
1075984
Every state has some procedure for post-conviction relief if the plea was entered in ignorance.  The problem is that in most jurisdictions a subjective expectation of a specific sentence will not avoid the plea as long as the judge told the defendant what the maximum possible sentence was.  On the other hand, if the lawyer told the defendant that the judge would recite the max,  but the fix was in and he was guaranteed a specific sentence, then most states will allow post-conviction relief.  Your friend can find more info in the prison library.
810998
NO! Are you kidding? A judge cannot be running around in fear that his decisions might be the basis for a criminal charge.  Who would ever be a judge then?\nJudges are required to make decisions based upon the evidence that comes before them, the law, and their wisdom and common sense.  That's why they're judges.   There are times when judges can be prosecuted -- if they take bribes or commit other criminal acts, for example.  But what you're asking is, essentially, to charge judges with crimes if they make rulings that are (eventually) determined to be incorrect that would have let in exculpatory evidence.  Then, in fear of their own lives or freedom, every judge would let in every piece of evidence proffered by a defense attorney, and capital cases would become absolute circuses.\n\nThe reason we have judicial gatekeepers to determine relevance and other rules of evidence is to ensure that the jurors hear only proper evidence--that their minds aren't tainted by prejudicial evidence, unreliable evidence, or red herring evidence introduced solely to confuse or inflame the jurors.  If you're so concerned about that, then you should allow BOTH sides to introduce whatever evidence they want.  That could include information about the defendant's predilections, his character, some other acts, unreliable hearsay evidence, junk science, and gruesome details about the death that would just enrage the jurors to convict.
605398
Only the judge can do that, but your probation officer can tell the judge how well you are doing, he may shorten your sentence, based on their reports.
1108109
Prisons are money making machines for the owners!  The states pay private prison managers a whole bunch of money.   Judges even own interests in restitution centers. What better way to keep 100% occupancy of their business. Isn't that a huge conflict of interest???\n\nIt is time for a huge revamp of our worthless prison system. \n\nThe basic premise of prison is to restrict freedom.  Currently they are nothing more than a holding tank.\n\nIf the inmate will be released at some point in their life it is better for society to get them headed towards managing freedom than a sudden release from a high security institution.  That is a recipe for failure. \n\nEmpowering an inmate through earning increased freedom woujld help reinforce the benefit of making postive choices. \n\nThere are many types of freedom restrictions:\n\nDeath row \nMaximum security - with no parole\n\nEventual Freedom:\n\nMaximum security - with parole\nSolitary confinement\nMinimum security\nJail\n(Convert abandoned military bases for low risk felons, youthful offenders, non violent crimes, rather than put them in with hardened criminals)\nWork release centers\nRestitution centers (how many judges invest in these and sentence people to them to keep them full?)\nForest camps\nRehab center\nHouse arrest\nTreatment centers\n\nMore freedom:\n\nAnkle bracelet monitoring\nParole from prison where they must meet with their parole officer\nProbation from jail where they must meet with their probation officer\n3rd Party Custodian\nRandom drug testing\nLose drivers license\nBreathalyzer installed on vehicle\n\nThe inmate enters prison at the highest level of freedom restriction the crime designates, determined by the type of crime.  \n\nBased on a set of personal needs and goals, the inmate can complete certain sets of requirements and move towards more freedom in graduated steps.  If they fight or break rules, they are sent back to the highest level of freedom restriction to start over. \n\nSome goals should be obtaining a GED, increasing SAT scores, entering college, higher education, work skills, community work within a prison (teaching someone to read, tutoring another inmate to get their GED), learning and applying anger management techniques, learning about domestic violence, revealing their early childhood trauma, learning to cry, feel human emotions.
421249
I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but you gotta remember that in the old days, these punishments were meted out on site and without the benefit of "interference" from an impartial judicial system.  While "eye for an eye" would certainly cause some criminals to take a closer look at their actions, it would still have to be administered carefully and minimally, much in the way the death penalty is handled today.
332477
yes, it's in the bill of rights, 8th amendment:\n\nExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
115819
No because it is too late.  You allowed the person to be found guilty already and is awaiting sentencing.  You can make a statement to the judge before sentence is passed down by the judge.
725371
They are both guilty. As the saying goes, come to court w/ clean hands or the court will leave you as is. So, if I'm the judge, I'll refuse to decide the case. Instead I'll have them both arrested.
438182
A jury is used as a guideline for the judge. Many judges are pursuaded by the jury and follow what a jury says. But jury selection is key, if you get a liberal jury who finds a without a doubt criminal innocent, the judge will overrule this decision. Judges without juries are much more strict and follow thier own guidelines. Juries help the judge see the publics view about this persons alleged crime. This is why a criminal demand a trial by jury of 12, it is to help soften the sentence.
1160018
You have submitted an interesting question here. I whole heartily agree with you that everyone should be given the same punishment that is befitting the crime without any exceptions as to whoever has committed the crime, whether it be a well known family such as the Kennedy family or the drug dealer down the block. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it because in the long run it's still a crime that should be addressed and punished to the full extent of the law.\nWhy should anyone be given a lighter sentence just because of who they are, murder is murder and should aways be addressed as such and let the punishment fit the crime!
24795
No.  However it can seem harsh for certain types of crime such as drug smuggling, and therfore its application is a little extreme. Unfortunatley the pendulum has swung a little to far with respect to the application of the death penalty in Singapore. Other countries, such as Canada, that do not have the death penalty should consider it for murder and attempted murder. Here the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction. There has to be a balance so that a justice system, in any given country, is just. Meaning that the appropriate punishment is given for the crime.  Unfortunately, opponents of the death penalty fail to understand this simple principle.
217508
Mandatory minimums in sentencing do not help society... Determining appropriate punishment and duration of prison terms is something for Judges to do, not for the District Attorney's office to decide at the time of filing charges.\nMinimum sentencing requirements can backfire and lead to juries finding "Not Guilty" in cases where a "Guilty " verdict would be right just because the accused is young, or likeable or the jury for some reason does not want to see that person sentenced to a long prison term\nLet the DA file charges\nLet the Jury determine Guilt or Innocence\nand\nLet Judges decide sentencing.\nPlease take our criminal justice system out of the hands of politicians.
304215
I haven't checked out the site, because my opinion is firmly developed on this subject.\n\nThose deemed guilty of a crime against society, especially a violent crime, in this day and age, are only punished by lack of freedom.  That is not sufficient penalty, in my opinion.  I believe that convicted criminals should be subject to any and all heavy labor deemed relevant to their 'repayment of society'.  \n\nIf imprisonment is to be a true deterrant to crime, it must be 'beyond horrible'.  That's not to say that we should torture, or abuse criminals, but by golly, developing a farmiliarity to HARD WORK can only help them when they get out of prison.\n\nAnd, as an example, I find it personally objectionable as a taxpayer to be paying for cable t.v. service for inmates.  Or to be providing vegetables and grains for prison consumption.  Veggies and grains should be produced by prisoners in prison farms.  \n\nInmates lifting weights all day, or earning a law degree is simply not O.K., if it's done on the backs of their law abiding fellow citizens.  Just my opinion!
275887
only by stiffer penalty's,let the time fit the crime and  give them no probation and if its a elected official, they must give up their retirement benefits.... being hard on them wont be easy and in some peoples eyes, it may not be fair... but who ever said fighting corruption was easy....or fair?? you fight fire with fire.....
696836
In essence, the rule says that any evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights cannot be admitted as evidence in the trial, unless one of several exemptions apply. The main controversy in this area is that guilty people can get off when there is no other evidence to convict. However, I think it is well worth letting a few guilty people go free to protect the rights granted in the constitution. If the rule did not exist, there would be little reason for the cops to follow the constitution, since their illegal evidence would still get the job done.