Do you favor mandatory sentencing?

[Stinky The Clown]

Our state legislature is reconciling house and senate versions of minimum sentences for sex offenders. Simply by way of example, second degree with a minor will result in either 15 or 20 years without possibility of parole.

That debate inspired the question in the OP title.

[LakeSamish706]

1. I favor Mandatory Sentencing and no possibility of parole for 15 or 20 years and

only then if the parole board thinks that the person qualifies for parole following appropriate counseling of the individual.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I'm assuming (perhaps unfairly) your reply was limited to sex offenders

The question was intended to be broad in nature . . . . . it was intended to go to all mandatory sentencing. Would that change your answer?

[LakeSamish706]

12. Yeah, my response was in reference to sex offenders and serial killers.

I know that there is a problem with both of these types of killers; ie: They are sick puppies and should be held in a facility that can deal with their problems. However, I also realize that we (The American tax payers) are not likely to foot the bill to asses these people, or give them serious treatment.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. No...

Mandatory sentancing and justice are mutually exclusive.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Very well said

:thumbsup:

[Dr Morbius]

18. Spot on. I couldn't oppose this more strongly.

[Ms. Toad]

39. Agreed. n/t

[Gman2]

3. I say fire all the judges if they cannot judge. Or, LET THEM JUDGE

[Posteritatis]

16. Madness! Sparta, even! (nt)

[Morning Dew]

5. I'm not in favor of civil committments for prisoners who've completed their sentences.

So longer minimum sentences would be my preference.

That civil committment business is a slippery slope as far as I can see.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. That implies your answer was targeted to sex offenders

Would your answer be the same about more broadly considered mandatory sentencing?

[Morning Dew]

11. No. I think judges need some leeway on sentencing.

Guidelines for various crimes are warranted to avoid huge disparities in sentencing but judges should be able to allow for circumstances.

[LakeSamish706]

20. The problem that I have with that is that many Judges (now adays it would seem)

are politically motivated. This can change how they sentence and/or hold these criminals. If mandatory sentencing is in effect, they are obligated to sentence these offenders to these terms.

[Posteritatis]

25. And sentencing laws aren't?

Three strikes laws aren't politically motivated? Huge mandatory minimums for soft drug possession aren't?

[elleng]

7. No.

Haven't participated in MD issues yet. Don't know what I can do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I believe in determinate sentences, which is more important IMO than mandatory

[blueamy66]

10. No, I do not.

nt

[Luminous Animal]

13. Nope.

"10 Year Sentence For Consensual Oral Sex"

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/19/103911/32

[Blue_In_AK]

14. No

There should be no one-size-fits-all. Judges get paid a lot of money to judge. Mandatory sentences tie good judges' hands.

[Posteritatis]

15. I don't like mandatory sentences in pretty much any situation

They're generally feelgood "let's be Tough On Crime(tm)!" things and strip a lot of context or grey areas or whatever else from the trial/sentencing process. I'd rather have the people in the courtroom have more of a say in what happens than less, on the idea that the judge likely has a better idea of what's necessary when the facts are in front of him/her.

(Or the victims. I'm a big fan of restorative justice; it's been tried more in my neck of the woods lately and seems to be working well.)

Conservatives in my neck of the woods howl continuously for long mandatory sentences for just about anything and the wrath-fetishism aspect of it is offputting.

[patrice]

17. No.

[Toucano]

19. Judges should be expected to have judgement.

Mandatory sentencing laws take that judgement away.

No, I oppose all mandatory sentencing laws as in interference of the legislature upon the judiciary.

[Posteritatis]

27. That's a good point, too. (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

21. In general no, with one exception.

Michigan and New Hampshire (and probably some other states) impose mandatory life without parole for first degree murder. I have absolutely no problem with this and would love to see this applied nationwide, simultaneously with abolition of the death penalty.

[gvstn]

24. Not saying right or wrong

But, say a family is killed by a career violent felon; both parents and two children. The eighteen year old son who was out for the evening survives his family. The felon does not get convicted because of a technicality. The eighteen is consumed with rage and murders the felon.

Is the eighteen year old truly a threat to society for the rest of his life? Is he likely to repeat the crime? Is society best served by keeping him in prison for 60 years?

I think those questions are why a judge should be responsible for deciding what an appropriate sentence is taking all the facts into consideration. He/she may still impose the harshest sentence if they deem it appropriate.

[Posteritatis]

26. While it's getting off your point, that sounds second-degree

Of course, it's the kind of context-heavy situation that mandatory minumums generally dislike. I mean, the kid would have to do time for that IMO, but definitely not indefinite imprisonment or the like at all.

[Vattel]

37. Even that is problematic.

There are cases of first degree murder where the murderer clearly desrves less (e.g., certain mercy killings).

[backscatter712]

22. No, it's idiotic.

It results in unjust sentences, overcrowded prisons, and general clusterfuckery.

[Hawkeye-X]

23. For non-violent sex offenders, fuck no.

but mandatory life in solitary for the rest of their fucking lives for pedophiles, chickenhawks, diddlers and assholes.

That said, the sex offense registry is like the Mark of Cain to these people as well.

Hawkeye-X

[bridgit]

28. Then who needs a judge - just insert parking structure invoice here, collect receipt & change if any

And walk out the door - who needs judges?

[wickerwoman]

29. No, not at all. Let judges judge. Let teachers teach. Let doctors doctor.

Enough with proscriptive business-model best practice bullshit in fields where it doesn't apply or work.

[rucky]

35. AMEN!

[Vattel]

38. wow

that should be framed, or carved into marble, or broadcast as a public service announcement, or something.

[Jkid]

30. No.

They can use minimum sentencing as starting points for the sentencing guidelines, but the discretion for the final sentence should be up to the judge itself.

[Greyhound]

31. No.

As has been shown too many times to count they do not work. They are no deterrent and they encourage escalation.

Another terrible idea brought to us by the coalition of fearful sheep and short-sighted dimwits.

[sabrina 1]

32. No ~ n/t

[CLANG]

33. A mandatory sentence makes justice less granular

[gleaner]

34. For violent crimes and repeat offenders ...

yes I do. I do consider sex offenders to be violent criminals. Even if they don't do atrocious physical harm to their victims while they are committing their crimes they set off an emotional depth charge that can ruin the victims life. That is violence too.

I do not favor the death penalty. There are no do overs and murder is murder no matter who does it. Discretionary sentencing and parole has not worked out so well, though. So many violent criminals are in and out of prison on parole as if it were a revolving door. Theoretically they could have paroled Charlie Manson. He was just so notorious that no one had the stones to do it.

[SmileyRose]

36. No

because some of the shit they call a sex crime is silly. Like a drunk college kid peeing behind the grocery store. I'd rather give the Judge and Jury all the leeway we can because not every case is the same.

[JHB]

40. No, they're a bait-and-switch

They get sold with certain egregious offenses in mind, but they invariably reach wider than that, leading to sentences that don't fit the crime for obviously lesser offenses.