Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

[joecct]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

There is one set of rules for the rich and one set of rules for the not rich. That is never going to change.

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Would it? It's immediate sentencing reform. Either the crazy disproportionate sentences minorities receive go down or white and/or rich sentencing never sees a Stanford case again.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the appeals, additional lawsuits (I got this because I'm [insert whatever]), etc etc. Then the public outcry on the original cases, as well as the appeals/additional cases. I think it would go exponential, and that's just not good.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

If you ever get in trouble with the law, hire more attorney than you can possibly afford.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

People suck. Makes you want to never leave the house.

^^ This.

[unofan]

If you ever get in trouble with the law, hire more attorney than you can possibly afford.

But be careful if you let someone else foot your legal bills (or you foot the bill for someone else), because you run into issues where what the person paying wants is not necessarily what's best for the actual client.

My wife says she's seen plenty of letters of support written for her clients that are way worse than what the dad in the Stanford case wrote. And she would've never let the dad's letter see the light of day. But then she's paid by the state, not dad, so she could tell the dad to fark off without worry.

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Would it? It's immediate sentencing reform. Either the crazy disproportionate sentences minorities receive go down or white and/or rich sentencing never sees a Stanford case again.

We have a problem with sentencing in this country. First, we have way too many people incarcerated, and second, what we have chosen to incarcerate people for and the time for which they are incarcerated has disproportionately affected minorities.

Here is my personal opinion about where we went wrong.

It used to be that we basically relied on the judge to make the correct sentencing decision. He, or she, was the person who listened to the evidence, heard the defendant confess or testify or respond to the guilty verdict, heard the arguments of counsel, read the law and handed down the sentence.

It wasn't a perfect system. We do have a few racist judges. You would see some inconsistencies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction with respect to a sentence imposed. But in my opinion it generally worked.

But, as with everything in this country, someone became aggrieved by their case, and so laws were changed. "Sentencing guidelines" were created and judges were basically told you do not deviate from these unless extreme circumstances exist. We started doing massive pre-sentence investigations in which people in the incarceration system come up with their own recommendation for what the sentence should be.

The effect has been to basically tie the hands of judges when it comes to sentencing. We could have a laptop do it for us. As a result, we've taken away both the need and obligation on the part of judges to truly think about what to sentence. Instead, they go the safe route and stay within the guidelines and sentence in accordance with the pre-sentence report and clock out at the end of the day.

If I'm not mistaken, in the Stanford case the pre-sentence report basically said send this kid away for something like 6 months to a year. The judge just followed that, and is now paying the price, possibly.

I say take sentencing out of the hands of the untrained people who didn't see and hear the defendant and didn't hear the evidence, and put it back in the hands of judges.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

If I'm not mistaken, in the Stanford case the pre-sentence report basically said send this kid away for something like 6 months to a year. The judge just followed that, and is now paying the price, possibly.

I say take sentencing out of the hands of the untrained people who didn't see and hear the defendant and didn't hear the evidence, and put it back in the hands of judges.

That's interesting. I had no idea.

Regarding the concept of a PSIR, I had very little knowledge of how these were even written. Shows how much I understand the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings.

Thanks for the info

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

That's interesting. I had no idea.

Regarding the concept of a PSIR, I had very little knowledge of how these were even written. Shows how much I understand the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings.

Thanks for the info

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...nient-sentence

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

We have a problem with sentencing in this country. First, we have way too many people incarcerated, and second, what we have chosen to incarcerate people for and the time for which they are incarcerated has disproportionately affected minorities.

Here is my personal opinion about where we went wrong.

It used to be that we basically relied on the judge to make the correct sentencing decision. He, or she, was the person who listened to the evidence, heard the defendant confess or testify or respond to the guilty verdict, heard the arguments of counsel, read the law and handed down the sentence.

It wasn't a perfect system. We do have a few racist judges. You would see some inconsistencies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction with respect to a sentence imposed. But in my opinion it generally worked.

But, as with everything in this country, someone became aggrieved by their case, and so laws were changed. "Sentencing guidelines" were created and judges were basically told you do not deviate from these unless extreme circumstances exist. We started doing massive pre-sentence investigations in which people in the incarceration system come up with their own recommendation for what the sentence should be.

The effect has been to basically tie the hands of judges when it comes to sentencing. We could have a laptop do it for us. As a result, we've taken away both the need and obligation on the part of judges to truly think about what to sentence. Instead, they go the safe route and stay within the guidelines and sentence in accordance with the pre-sentence report and clock out at the end of the day.

If I'm not mistaken, in the Stanford case the pre-sentence report basically said send this kid away for something like 6 months to a year. The judge just followed that, and is now paying the price, possibly.

I say take sentencing out of the hands of the untrained people who didn't see and hear the defendant and didn't hear the evidence, and put it back in the hands of judges.

If that's what you want, we then go to mandatory minimums. Some of which are evidently lobbied by the prison-industrial complex. That's working REAL well, especially for things that are victimless and non-violent.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Right. But if person A committed a rape and person B committed rape under similar circumstances and with a similar rap sheet, person A and B should receive the same sentences.

I think the key is, there needs to be better sentencing guidelines. They need to better defined, regardless of what your background or race or sex or whatever is.

[unofan]

I think the key is, there needs to be better sentencing guidelines. They need to better defined, regardless of what your background or race or sex or whatever is.

Disagree. The federal sentencing guidelines lead to horrendous outcomes. Zero tolerance rules by school boards lead to first graders getting expelled because they brought pointed scissors instead of rounded ones. I don't think the states need to go down that route en masse and continue that same series of mistakes.

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Trump supporter? You are no longer welcome in this coffee shop.

Remember kids, it's only discrimination when the shopkeeper is conservative and bans people based on his beliefs. When a liberal sludge slinger does it, he should be celebrated!

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Disagree. The federal sentencing guidelines lead to horrendous outcomes. Zero tolerance rules by school boards lead to first graders getting expelled because they brought pointed scissors instead of rounded ones. I don't think the states need to go down that route en masse and continue that same series of mistakes.

Dang. We agree on something.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Disagree. The federal sentencing guidelines lead to horrendous outcomes. Zero tolerance rules by school boards lead to first graders getting expelled because they brought pointed scissors instead of rounded ones. I don't think the states need to go down that route en masse and continue that same series of mistakes.

Ok, I see that point.

[rufus]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

At the same time, people need to do time for their crimes. In my local rag, I see so many people busted for stuff, who get fined or jail time, with most if not all that fine or jail time suspended, and then see guys get busted for breaking into cars, or whatever, who have rap sheets a mile long, but had suspended sentences and fines in their previous histories.

If there's no punishment for breaking the law, then people are just gonna keep doing it.