• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much discretion should judges have?

radcen said:
How much discretion should judges have?

Open-ended question.
Click to expand...

Marginal. Discretion reduces calculability and reliability of the legal system. That reduces it's efficiency and the desirability of the jurisdiction.
 
radcen said:
How much discretion should judges have?

Open-ended question.
Click to expand...

They should have a reasonable breadth, I suppose. They hear the cases and can make exceptions, of course it's bound to be abused one way or the other. But the other side of the spectrum is the automatic sentencing, and that's just stupid. There has to be some amount of leeway to make accounts for the specific set of circumstances behind a crime.
 
radcen said:
How much discretion should judges have?

Open-ended question.
Click to expand...

Full discretion. Every case is unique. If you don't like a judge's decision then that's what appeals are for.
 
Complete discretion. Isn't that why he or she is called "judge"?

Our misguided policy of minimum mandatory sentences have taken away discretion from the judge who heard the case, and there are many examples of injustice being delivered by such a policy.
 
it depends

if I like the judge's agenda...lots of discretion

if I disagree with the judge's agenda...no discretion

see how that works

it's a fubar before we even begin
 
I believe in the Separation of Powers. Thus, the judicial branch should be able to make their own decisions without regard to sentencing quotas set by the executive or legislative branches.
 
Brewdog said:
I believe in the Separation of Powers. Thus, the judicial branch should be able to make their own decisions without regard to sentencing quotas set by the executive or legislative branches.
Click to expand...

I think that traditional american jurisprudence generally recognizes the supremacy of the legislative branch, the will of the people as long as the Supreme Law and its principles are respected.
 
Brewdog said:
I believe in the Separation of Powers. Thus, the judicial branch should be able to make their own decisions without regard to sentencing quotas set by the executive or legislative branches.
Click to expand...
They do make their own decisions. The US Sentencing Commission sets the guidelines. They are part of the Judiciary, not the executive.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
That's what appeals are for. But, absent an overwhelming public outcry, the prosecuting attorneys are not going to piss off the judge.

The people who get totally screwed in our system are the victims.
 
Patrickt said:
That's what appeals are for. But, absent an overwhelming public outcry, the prosecuting attorneys are not going to piss off the judge.

The people who get totally screwed in our system are the victims.
Click to expand...

Yes, in too many cases our system itself creates victims.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, in too many cases our system itself creates victims.
Click to expand...

I was scheduled to appear with an attorney from the ACLU at a meeting one night and the topic was the juvenile justice system. I'm sure we were supposed to debate but we quickly agreed that the kids who got the best deal and the victims who got the best service were in the cases that never went to court. If it went to court, everyone lost.
 
I would be in favor of Judges having fairly wide discretion.
Mandatory sentencing laws are an abomination of our justice system,
in that they are open loop feedback, that do not take into account all of the variables
that can occur when a person's freedom is placed in jeopardy by the justice system.
 
Patrickt said:
I was scheduled to appear with an attorney from the ACLU at a meeting one night and the topic was the juvenile justice system. I'm sure we were supposed to debate but we quickly agreed that the kids who got the best deal and the victims who got the best service were in the cases that never went to court. If it went to court, everyone lost.
Click to expand...
I can see that, but could you expand a bit? I find this interesting.
 
radcen said:
How much discretion should judges have?

Open-ended question.
Click to expand...

We should entirely dismantle the mandatory sentencing scheme. But appellate courts should be more willing to revise a sentence if the defendant can show on appeal that his sentence was way higher than similar defendants convicted of similar crimes - meaning the factual circumstances of the crime and not just the charge.

In other words: a lot more, but with better review than we currently have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom