Mandatory minimums are stupid. Statutes in most cases define minimum and maximum sentences judges may hand down, specific to the crime, its nature and threat to society.
Minimums for non-violent offenses are particularly onerous, like the old debtor prisons.
I guess that life term for stealing a loaf of bread for the third time is rational?
I have to agree with DaSharkie on this one. Just last week, here in Boston, a drunk driver who hit & killed a State Trooper with his car, was given a 1-year sentence, much to the exasperation of family and fellow Troopers. Often I read, or hear in the news of such over-lenient sentencing by judges, AND of repeat offenders who constantly were given light, or suspended sentences in the past.
I agree that sentencing is inconsistent. Recently a local person was sentenced to 8 years for a home invasion/robbery. In the same newspaper, it was written that another person was sentenced to 6 years because he was driving with a suspended license and drunk and killed a six-year-old on a bike, leaving the scene immediately afterwards.
Mandatory sentencing is not the answer. Judicial responsibility is.
Another good example is the demand by some legislators to pass a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget.
If you need to create a constitutional amendment to make you do your job, then you are not doing your job. This can be easily done without a constitutional amendment, if the will is there.
We are now a society that has forgotten the value of personal and professional responsibility, and no one-size-fits-all set of laws will restore that.
The fallacy in the ‘toon and some of the discussion is that “Mandatory Sentencing…” is NOT (by definition & intent), “Guidelines”. The sentences are absolute for enumerated crimes (3 Strikes, etc.) or specific transgressions, without regard to circumstances, and take away the judges’ discretion regarding assessment of “punishment suited to the crime” In some jurisdictions, a third conviction for even a non-violent, no weapons drug offense can land a 20-something in prison for life – with no possibility of parole ! Many of the hand-slaps and light sentences have resulted from lazy, unethical and parsimonious investigations / prosecutions, obtaining a plea bargain to ease the over-load of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, etc. It used to be aspired that “…better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” ~ Sir Wm. Blackstone (1765). Should the conservatives…Christians wish a better reference: Genesis 18:23-32. “Mandatory Sentencing” is NOT God’s answer…nor is “I felt threatened…so I shot him !”
wbr: just a note, I personally at a gut level have no problem with making child molesters eunuchs, but three minor, non-violent offenses shouldn’t lead to life in prison, and Texas’ punishment for simple possession of marijuana is ludicrously abusive and vile.
Judges, and appeals process, should determine the “punishment fitting the crime”. Likewise, mental competence should NOT be used to determine “guilt or innocence”, but should play a role in the form of sentencing.
Damn! I just finished reading the Boston Globe this morning (June 28). ANOTHER man, who was arrested two months ago for rape, was, at first, required to post $25K bail. His lawyer appealed the high bail. The same judge said NO. His lawyer appealed again, got another (female judge) who reduced bail to “personal recognizance”, with a locator anklet. Well, “allegedly” this man assaulted, robbed and raped another young woman. She identified him through photos the police showed her. The anklet he was wearing put him in the location of the assault, at the time! Too many judges put the perpetrator’s rights ahead of those of the victims, and the rest of the public!
If anyone does not believe this, get yourself a copy of today’s Boston Globe!
True rape, not “date rape” with day after regret IS a vile crime. IF with physical abuse or threat to life or limb, “minimum” sentence should be the “Rocky Mountain Oyster” solution. The biggest problem today is that 1. folks assume DNA evidence will always be available, but 2. on the other hand, DNA HAS cleared more folks of rape than most any other crime.
History has proven that one of the LEAST reliable pieces of evidence is “eye-witness” testimony!
But, Mangy and others, having been in law enforcement, and reading stories like you reference in the Globe, we DO need to maintain “innocent until proven guilty”, BUT if the evidence IS overwhelming, physical + witness+means,opportunity, and intent, as in the Globe story, lawyers shouldn’t be able to get folks off so easily, and should be criminally liable for their client’s offenses if repeated after their release based on “technicalities”.
But yes, it is a double black diamond slope to maneuver.
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
Mandatory minimums are stupid. Statutes in most cases define minimum and maximum sentences judges may hand down, specific to the crime, its nature and threat to society.
Minimums for non-violent offenses are particularly onerous, like the old debtor prisons.
I guess that life term for stealing a loaf of bread for the third time is rational?
oneoldhat almost 10 years ago
so dtroutma you think 30 days is long enough for child rape ?
moosemin almost 10 years ago
I have to agree with DaSharkie on this one. Just last week, here in Boston, a drunk driver who hit & killed a State Trooper with his car, was given a 1-year sentence, much to the exasperation of family and fellow Troopers. Often I read, or hear in the news of such over-lenient sentencing by judges, AND of repeat offenders who constantly were given light, or suspended sentences in the past.
I Play One On TV almost 10 years ago
Good point.
I Play One On TV almost 10 years ago
I agree that sentencing is inconsistent. Recently a local person was sentenced to 8 years for a home invasion/robbery. In the same newspaper, it was written that another person was sentenced to 6 years because he was driving with a suspended license and drunk and killed a six-year-old on a bike, leaving the scene immediately afterwards.
Mandatory sentencing is not the answer. Judicial responsibility is.
Another good example is the demand by some legislators to pass a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget.
If you need to create a constitutional amendment to make you do your job, then you are not doing your job. This can be easily done without a constitutional amendment, if the will is there.
We are now a society that has forgotten the value of personal and professional responsibility, and no one-size-fits-all set of laws will restore that.
Robert C. Premium Member almost 10 years ago
The fallacy in the ‘toon and some of the discussion is that “Mandatory Sentencing…” is NOT (by definition & intent), “Guidelines”. The sentences are absolute for enumerated crimes (3 Strikes, etc.) or specific transgressions, without regard to circumstances, and take away the judges’ discretion regarding assessment of “punishment suited to the crime” In some jurisdictions, a third conviction for even a non-violent, no weapons drug offense can land a 20-something in prison for life – with no possibility of parole ! Many of the hand-slaps and light sentences have resulted from lazy, unethical and parsimonious investigations / prosecutions, obtaining a plea bargain to ease the over-load of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, etc. It used to be aspired that “…better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” ~ Sir Wm. Blackstone (1765). Should the conservatives…Christians wish a better reference: Genesis 18:23-32. “Mandatory Sentencing” is NOT God’s answer…nor is “I felt threatened…so I shot him !”
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
wbr: just a note, I personally at a gut level have no problem with making child molesters eunuchs, but three minor, non-violent offenses shouldn’t lead to life in prison, and Texas’ punishment for simple possession of marijuana is ludicrously abusive and vile.
Judges, and appeals process, should determine the “punishment fitting the crime”. Likewise, mental competence should NOT be used to determine “guilt or innocence”, but should play a role in the form of sentencing.
moosemin almost 10 years ago
Damn! I just finished reading the Boston Globe this morning (June 28). ANOTHER man, who was arrested two months ago for rape, was, at first, required to post $25K bail. His lawyer appealed the high bail. The same judge said NO. His lawyer appealed again, got another (female judge) who reduced bail to “personal recognizance”, with a locator anklet. Well, “allegedly” this man assaulted, robbed and raped another young woman. She identified him through photos the police showed her. The anklet he was wearing put him in the location of the assault, at the time! Too many judges put the perpetrator’s rights ahead of those of the victims, and the rest of the public!
If anyone does not believe this, get yourself a copy of today’s Boston Globe!
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
True rape, not “date rape” with day after regret IS a vile crime. IF with physical abuse or threat to life or limb, “minimum” sentence should be the “Rocky Mountain Oyster” solution. The biggest problem today is that 1. folks assume DNA evidence will always be available, but 2. on the other hand, DNA HAS cleared more folks of rape than most any other crime.
History has proven that one of the LEAST reliable pieces of evidence is “eye-witness” testimony!
But, Mangy and others, having been in law enforcement, and reading stories like you reference in the Globe, we DO need to maintain “innocent until proven guilty”, BUT if the evidence IS overwhelming, physical + witness+means,opportunity, and intent, as in the Globe story, lawyers shouldn’t be able to get folks off so easily, and should be criminally liable for their client’s offenses if repeated after their release based on “technicalities”.
But yes, it is a double black diamond slope to maneuver.