How much discretion should judges be given in determining sentences?

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I once had a conversation on another forum about giving sex offenders harsher punishments in order to keep the public safe. When I suggested mandatory sentences, one user said that such a thing would not work either and that judges should be able to choose the right time for the crime. Then I suggested judges be given a range of years to choose from. He dismissed my statement as being the same as the first one and stated that judges need to have complete discretion on sentences otherwise it does not matter if a judge has range to choose from or a complete lack of choice. He feels that it is the only way to ensure fair trials, and that judges need complete discretion in the event of cases that warrant alternative punishments.

Now, there have been pushes for laws requiring harsher punishments for violent and sex crimes on the grounds that certain crimes are so bad that they should as a rule have at least a minimum out of years to be served.

In addition, there is whole debate of mandatory sentencing. Proponents argue that mandatory sentencing will be fair because it ensures that everyone who commits a certain crime will get the same sentence and not be treated too harshly or too leniently. Such laws could even deter crime because a criminal would know the time they would serve if they get caught and punished. Opponents argue mandatory sentencing will result in some criminals being treated to harshly, and that the best way ensure fair sentences is to judge each crime on its own merits. Such opponents also argue that the best way to deter crimes is not through sentences but to increase the odds of conviction.

I have some ambivalence on the issue. I do not think that all crimes should have the same sentences. However, I think there should be a minimum punishment based the the circumstances of a crime unless there is reason to give an alternate punishment. I can understand the notion that minimum punishments can prevent fair treatment of criminals.

[Unlucky_Leprechaun]

Judges can be biases, hold grudges, and be racist or just do not like the guy. I guess what I am saying Judges are humans also... I am for jury trials -- judged by peers -- I mean you will not be able to please all segments of the population (I mean look at the recent Anthony trial). Having a team of 12 jurors vs the prospect of just a single human being I think..I would want the jury...with that being said.. I do believe in minimum time for certain crimes..as the heinousness of the crime increases so should punishments. Death penalty= you betcha..free the jails of tax burden to house these criminals ( I guess that's another debate :-) ) The appeals process for Death Penalties should not be drug out as long as it is... But, getting back to the point.... judges should not have full discretion especially in the harsher crimes.

[Modus Operandi]

No human being, no matter what they say, can be completely impartial. Judges are human, so it follows that they cannot be so. I believe that having a range of years give judges something to work with, and minimizes what I will call for the purpose of this thread subconscious corruption.