Sharp as a Marble - Oh how my mind has been changed

<< Soon, Jay G. will have a very, very sore shoulder | Home | I support regulation. Wait, you mean it's MY ox? >>

I used to think that Mandatory Minimum Sentences were A Good Thing™ but Jon Gutmacher illustrates why they are a terrible idea.

It's a sad state of affairs when going to court is riskier than betting it all on Black in Vegas. One shouldn't have to consider odds and weigh risks when attempting to get justice served. If you're a complete thug, your sentencing should be harsher than some schmuck who just lost it.

Mandatory sentences isn't justice, it's a cop out from having to do any of the hard work that makes a society function.

posted @ 1/9/2009 9:26:31 AM

Comments

Sir Limerick says:

on 1/9/2009 10:31:23 AM

It's the same mindset as zero-tolerance policies at school, which exist to remove judgment (and therefore lawsuits) from punishment...

Hairy Hobbit says:

on 1/9/2009 11:32:00 AM

As I asked over there, posted here in case lawyers are more common.... It's just something I'd like clarified.

Don't mandatory minimums go against the whole concept of checks and balances?

The legislature has taken away the discretion of the courts, who hear the facts and base sentencing on something, and assumed the role of judge in all cases.

Tanya says:

on 1/9/2009 11:37:04 AM

Is he calling that case "self defense?" The court records say there was a verbal altercation, he left the room, came back with a gun, and started shooting.

I certainly don't think he should've gotten twenty years, but anybody that starts shooting after a verbal fight? (a) That's not self defense, and (b) I'd hate to see him in traffic.

Robb says:

on 1/9/2009 12:40:59 PM

Tanya, no he's not calling it SD. Jon is saying that the guy didn't accept the plea bargain, probably under the assumption that while yes he did fire the weapon in anger, he's not the type of person who should be put away for 20 years and assumed that the judge would see it that way too.

The judge did, but then our benevolent masters decided they didn't have anything else better to do and felt like pushing their weight around a bit.

HH, I agree and wouldn't mind knowing that myself.

Wolfwood says:

on 1/9/2009 1:29:31 PM

Checks-and-balances is a federal, not state, concept. There's no reason Florida couldn't have a system like (20th century) Britain's where Parliament includes all three branches. It's legit for Florida to be like that, and it's not something (by itself) reviewable as a federal constitutional issue.

Federal mandatory sentencing has been struck down, although there are guidelines which must generally be followed unless a very good reason is articulated.

If I were the defendant I'd go after this on Cruel-and-Unusual grounds, although I would expect to lose.

Tanya says:

on 1/9/2009 1:41:41 PM

Are you sure? If not, he's worded his post badly. He uses the term "self defense" twice in the previous paragraph, and then without segue, says "A recent appellate case illustrates the point."

Maybe it's just lawyerese.

Robb says:

on 1/9/2009 2:01:52 PM

It appears he had no defense in the case other than having "lost it", and being in dire need of some anger control counseling before the incident happened

So I don't think he's saying this guy was using self defense.

What I believe he means that if you were to shoot someone and it was proven that self-defense wasn't required at the point, you're still in for min. sentencing even though you're not necessarily a threat to the public.

Then again, IANAL. Hell, I'm barely a computer programmer.

teqjack says:

on 1/9/2009 3:00:03 PM

No, e was not saying the noted case was self-defense, just showing what may happen when mandatory-minimum laws are written.

But yes, even shooting in self-defense may result in mandatory sentencing, if a D.A. or other official so decides and takes the case to court.

I usually illustrate this with a case in California a couple of years back. Store being robbed, employee wrests gun from robber and holds him for police. Employee later arrested and jailed, pursuant to being sent to prison

Why? The employee was on parole, and "being in possession" of a firearm is an automatic go-directly-to-jail card.

He was released after the newspaper ran with the story. At the DA`s discretion. Which was not available to the parole officer or others...

Tom says:

on 1/10/2009 2:09:13 AM

Says who wolfwood?

Clearly states have an almost identical system, state laws are struck down for being unconstitutional all the time by state courts. If there is no checks and balances then how would you explain that? Is it just over reaching by the courts?

Wolfwood says:

on 1/10/2009 1:57:38 PM

Tom,

Checks-and-balances, a/k/a Separation of Powers, only applies when you have a system that uses branches of government (such as the Legislative-Executive-Judicial division the federal government and all states use) to monitor each other. You don't actually have this in a unitary system such as Britain uses (although they're arguably beginning to create a separate judicial branch). No state is obligated to use this system; so long as their form of government is a representative democracy they largely do as they like.

The checks-and-balances system as we apply it to the federal system doesn't always apply to state systems, as the federal government isn't free to reform itself as a non-branch system (absent one heck of a constitutional amendment, if even that). It was sloppy of me to say that it doesn't apply at all; what I meant was that just because SCOTUS would strike down a federal statute using C&B doesn't mean that a state supreme court is obligated to do the same to an identical state law. This is especially relevant to the matter of jury trials (the reason the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are now deemed advisory-only), as the federal government is held to different requirements than states (states may use a minimum of six jurors for a criminal trial and need only a minimum of nine votes if the verdict isn't unanimous in a criminal trial, for instance).

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links