Mandatory Sentencing Laws?

[manifold]

As a matter of principle, I oppose all mandatory sentencing laws (not just hate crime laws). I do quite simply because every crime is unique and as such, they should all be considered on a case by case basis (no pun intended). Mandatory sentencing laws take judgement away from judges and justice out of the hands of justices.

Discuss

 

[JBeukema]

Mandatory sentencing laws go both ways. They can help ensure consistency, reduce the power of bargaining, and prevent ludicrously lax or long sentences, as well as presenting problems in individual scenarios.

 

[Diuretic]

They don't work. A proper sentencing policy derived from carefully crafted legislation that takes into account the purposes and various forms of punishment is much better. Mandatory sentencing can do a lot of harm, a person can be imprisoned for an act which, of itself, doesn't warrant imprisonment. That's not justice.

 

[manifold]

They don't work. A proper sentencing policy derived from carefully crafted legislation that takes into account the purposes and various forms of punishment is much better. Mandatory sentencing can do a lot of harm, a person can be imprisoned for an act which, of itself, doesn't warrant imprisonment. That's not justice.

I'm confused. The part I bolded sounds an awful lot like a carefully crafted euphamism for mandatory sentencing laws.

 

[manifold]

IMO, defending mandatory sentencing laws on the grounds that they do "some" good is analogous to defending government encroachment on the Bill of Rights on the grounds that more terrorists will be caught and if you ain't doing anything wrong you ain't got nuttin to worry about. In short, it's bullshit.

 

[Ravi]

I remember when you argued the other side of these laws.

 

[Diuretic]

They don't work. A proper sentencing policy derived from carefully crafted legislation that takes into account the purposes and various forms of punishment is much better. Mandatory sentencing can do a lot of harm, a person can be imprisoned for an act which, of itself, doesn't warrant imprisonment. That's not justice.

I'm confused. The part I bolded sounds an awful lot like a carefully crafted euphamism for mandatory sentencing laws.

By "mandatory sentencing" I assumed - could be my error - that you were referring to mandatory imprisonment. But since you didn't use that phrase then I think it might be my mistake.

In my defence, sentencing is always mandatory, it's a function of a court. The choice of punishment is also the function of a court and it's that I was focused on. Bloody tunnel vision

 

[manifold]

I remember when you argued the other side of these laws.

Never, ever you lying turd.

 

[Ravi]

I remember when you argued the other side of these laws.

Never, ever you lying turd.

Seriously? That other manifold wasn't you?

I don't believe you.

 

[manifold]

It was probably you.

Seriously Ravi, I've never ever argued for mandory sentencing. So you've either got me compeletely mixed up with someone else, or you're being intentionally dishonest. But that's for you to know and for me to not give a shit.

 

[Dis]

As a matter of principle, I oppose all mandatory sentencing laws (not just hate crime laws). I do quite simply because every crime is unique and as such, they should all be considered on a case by case basis (no pun intended). Mandatory sentencing laws take judgement away from judges and justice out of the hands of justices.

Discuss

Really? So you think one person that rapes a 5 year old should have a sentence that's lesser than another person who also rapes a 5 year old?

Why?

 

[manifold]

As a matter of principle, I oppose all mandatory sentencing laws (not just hate crime laws). I do quite simply because every crime is unique and as such, they should all be considered on a case by case basis (no pun intended). Mandatory sentencing laws take judgement away from judges and justice out of the hands of justices.

Discuss

Really? So you think one person that rapes a 5 year old should have a sentence that's lesser than another person who also rapes a 5 year old?

Why?

If one of them is 30 years old and the other is 7 years old they should definitely get a different sentence.

 

[Dis]

As a matter of principle, I oppose all mandatory sentencing laws (not just hate crime laws). I do quite simply because every crime is unique and as such, they should all be considered on a case by case basis (no pun intended). Mandatory sentencing laws take judgement away from judges and justice out of the hands of justices.

Discuss

Really? So you think one person that rapes a 5 year old should have a sentence that's lesser than another person who also rapes a 5 year old?

Why?

If one of them is 30 years old and the other is 7 years old they should definitely get a different sentence.

There are different sentencing laws for minors and adults.

Since you're going to choose to be nit picky, I"ll rephrase the question.

Why should two 25 year old males being (supposedly) of sound mind receive different sentences for each raping a 5 year old female child?

 

[JBeukema]

Why should two 25 year old males being (supposedly) of sound mind receive different sentences for each raping a 5 year old female child?

Not enough information.

Is either a repeat offender?
What were the levels of violence and/or manipulation involved?

If the circumstances are exactly the same in all regards, then they should receive the same sentence.

The flaw in your argument is that common law and precedent carry quite a bit of weight in court and mandatory sentencing terms (12-35, presumptive of 18 or whatever) are intended to ensure such consistency in the law, putting both upper and lower limints on sentences

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As a matter of principle, I oppose all mandatory sentencing laws (not just hate crime laws). I do quite simply because every crime is unique and as such, they should all be considered on a case by case basis (no pun intended). Mandatory sentencing laws take judgement away from judges and justice out of the hands of justices.

Discuss

I agree, however the reason we have them is because Judges were NOT sentencing criminals to appropriate times. I would suggest we go after Judges that think criminals should not get the appropriate time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As a matter of principle, I oppose all mandatory sentencing laws (not just hate crime laws). I do quite simply because every crime is unique and as such, they should all be considered on a case by case basis (no pun intended). Mandatory sentencing laws take judgement away from judges and justice out of the hands of justices.

Discuss

Really? So you think one person that rapes a 5 year old should have a sentence that's lesser than another person who also rapes a 5 year old?

Why?

Dishonest argument. But then we expect that crap from you.

 

[Dis]

Why should two 25 year old males being (supposedly) of sound mind receive different sentences for each raping a 5 year old female child?

Not enough information.

Is either a repeat offender?
What were the levels of violence and/or manipulation involved?

If the circumstances are exactly the same in all regards, then they should receive the same sentence.

The flaw in your argument is that common law and precedent carry quite a bit of weight in court and mandatory sentencing terms (12-35, presumptive of 18 or whatever) are intended to ensure such consistency in the law, putting both upper and lower limints on sentences

Blow their heads off, and there's no room for a repeat offense.

Problem solved.

Hell, there's no need for sentencing, either.

 

[manifold]

Really? So you think one person that rapes a 5 year old should have a sentence that's lesser than another person who also rapes a 5 year old?

Why?

If one of them is 30 years old and the other is 7 years old they should definitely get a different sentence.

There are different sentencing laws for minors and adults.

Since you're going to choose to be nit picky, I"ll rephrase the question.

Why should two 25 year old males being (supposedly) of sound mind receive different sentences for each raping a 5 year old female child?

All else being equal, they shouldn't. But I trust the judges to apply normal precedent in their sentencing of child rapists.

 

[JBeukema]

Blow their heads off, and there's no room for a repeat offense.

Problem solved.

Hell, there's no need for sentencing, either.

Revealing... so you want to kill them before they're ever sentenced to death?

This certainly seems to imply you want to kill the accused without any need for a trial or hearing of the evidence.


Would you care to rephrase?

 

[52ndStreet]

The "mandatory sentencing laws" are one of the main reasons why the American Prison population is one of the highest, if not the highest, of all industrialized nations in the world.With no end insight.