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