Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
The article lauds a judge for refusing to follow mandatory minimum sentencing laws ( full story here) yet you see time and time again here on CP where people post about some criminal sentence where the perpetrator gets off with a "slap on the wrist".
So which is it? Are the laws too hard, too soft, or maybe, just maybe, the laws should be crafted so that some official who has heard all the evidence (as opposed to a few sentences filtered through a journalist, editor and publisher in a newspaper) and knows the laws, who can decide on an appropriate sentence? You know, like a judge. |
In the case of people like the 24-time drunk driver, it is more likely the maximum sentences, rather than the minimum sentences, that need to be increased.
Increase judicial discretion and you run the risk of sentences unfit for the crime. Decrease judicial discretion, and you guarantee it.