Judicial discretion should be allowed for judges|My homework helper
Posted: February 20th, 2023
Judicial discretion should be allowed for judges, as they are still required to consider sentencing guidelines and other factors such as a defendant’s criminal history and the level of the criminal offense committed. Judges are also required to submit a written explanation of the factors weighed and used to come to their decision, ensuring accountability.
“In 1984, Congress enacted the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as part of the Sentencing Reform Act. Prior to the enactment of the Guidelines, Federal judges had a tremendous amount of discretion in sentencing a defendant.” (Mahoney, 2012). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines forced judges to abide by sentencing guidelines and completely restricted their discretion in deciding sentences. ” In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court responded in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court re-established judicial discretion, holding that while Federal judges must consider the Guideline ranges for sentencing, they are free to tailor individual sentences based on additional statutory concerns and fairness. Now, a Federal judge may impose a sentence outside the Guideline range, provided that the judge provides a written explanation of the factors he weighed in reaching his decision.” (Mahoney, 2012).
Get your paper done on time by an expert in your field.
The ultimate reason for me being in favor of a judge’s discretion is the severity of crimes committed. If judges were forced to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines, everyone who is charged with the same crime would encounter the same consequences. This does now allow for a fair legal system, as the severity of crimes, a defendant’s criminal history, circumstances, and the charges given to certain defendants can differ widely. As an example, a defendant with no prior criminal history could be charged with possession of a criminal substance in the seventh degree for possessing marijuana for recreational use; while a defendant with a long criminal history full of drug offenses could be charged with the same thing for possessing heroin. Should both of these defendants receive the same sentence or punishment? I do not believe so. A defendant’s criminal history, the severity of the crime, and circumstantial evidence should be taken into account when a judge decides a sentence, as the judge is also forced to take into account sentencing guidelines and remain accountable through an explanation of their decision. Also, in the event of this example, allowing judges to use discretion could allow the defendant with a long criminal history of drug offenses caught with heroin the opportunity to be offered rehabilitation (such a substance abuse treatment or drug court), instead of jail.
On the contrary, I will admit that I could foresee certain issues arising from judges being given discretion such as racial profiling. To provide an example of racial profiling and bias being implemented into a judge’s discretionary decision, a judge could impose a much higher sentence on an African American than a white man for the same crime. However, as mentioned earlier, there are methods of accountability put into place to avoid such issues as racial profiling, such as judges being forced to provide a written explanation for their discretion beyond sentencing guidelines. These methods of accountability can help to avoid discretionary decisions based on personal biases and ensure fair sentencing for all defendants.
References
Mahoney, K. (2012, 29 April). “Must a Judge Impose the Sentence Required by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?“ Relentless Defense. Retrieved from: https://www.relentlessdefense.com/must-a-judge-impose-the-sentence-required-by-the-federal-sentencing-guidelines/#:~:text=In%20Booker%2C%20the%20Court%20re-established%20judicial%20discretion%2C%20holding,sentences%20based%20on%20additional%20statutory%20concerns%20and%20fairness
Kronman, A. T. (1986). “The Problem of Judicial Discretion.” Faculty Scholarship Series 1063, p. 486. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1063
SOLUTION
Those who support judicial discretion argue that it allows for individualized justice, as judges can consider the unique circumstances of each case and offender. They can take into account factors such as the defendant’s age, background, and criminal history, as well as the severity and nature of the offense. By tailoring the sentence to fit the offender and the crime, judges can better achieve the goals of punishment, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, and public safety.
Moreover, allowing judges to use their discretion can help to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing. Studies have shown that mandatory minimums and other inflexible sentencing guidelines have had a disproportionate impact on communities of color, leading to higher incarceration rates and longer sentences for minorities. Judicial discretion can help to mitigate these disparities by allowing judges to consider factors such as implicit bias, racism, and discrimination.
However, opponents of judicial discretion argue that it can lead to inconsistent and arbitrary sentencing. They claim that it can create a “luck of the draw” situation, where the sentence a defendant receives depends on the judge assigned to their case. This can lead to unequal justice, as different judges may have different views on the severity of certain crimes or the appropriate punishment. It can also undermine the transparency and predictability of the criminal justice system, making it difficult for offenders to know what sentence they might face and for victims to feel confident that justice has been served.
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.