The W
Views: 134155016
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.6.18 1117
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court rejects rules for Federal Sentencing
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 7.04
Pages: 1
(890 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Post (4 total)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 8 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81

Will this be the end of mandatory minimum sentences?

I am interested to see how this plays out in the war on drugs. A move like this makes it much more interesting when a Federal jurisdiction tries to overrule a state law (I'm thinking of California's medical marijuana laws here).

What's the buzz in your area? Are people upset or happy about this in your state?

Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Promote this thread!

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 241 days
Last activity: 143 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
Guru, I am not a fan of mandatory sentencing. We hire judges to "judge". Circumstances that may dictate a harsher or lesser sentence (especially the three-strikes stuff)are unable to be taken into account and mandatory sentencing becomes counter-productive. Mandatory sentencing is also a reason our prisons are so full, often with people more a danger to themselves than anyone else. Often treatment of community service would be of more value to all involved.

I don't think this is even on the radar in flyover country with weather concerns and state legislatures getting most of the press.

edit: stupid grammar and big mistake.

(edited by DrDirt on 13.1.05 1058)

Perception is reality

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 1445 days
Last activity: 948 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.16
This issue seems to be below the radar for the vast majority of people. I’m in agreement with DrDirt in regards to mandatory sentencing.

However, to bring up one dissenting point, a friend of mine is a prosecuting attorney. He is worried that people who have committed crimes will be less likely to plea bargain, which would clog up the courts even more. His concern is that if criminals realize that more of the sentencing is up to the judge’s discretion, then the benefit (or at least the perceived benefit) of plea bargaining will decline. And, to the extent that this happens, the legal system would operate even more slowly than it does now.

Since: 17.2.04
From: Eugene, Oregon

Since last post: 4446 days
Last activity: 3748 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.25
Those that know about it here are happy. Of course Lane County, OR produces a HUGE amount of meth and such. And there are a lot of marijuana growers in these here parts. So that may be why they are happy, but I know of at least a few people who've tried to bring this to centerstage in discussion around here... But it's been a little while.

I've got many character flaws, humility isn't one.
Thread rated: 7.04
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Anti-Evolution stickers ruled unconstitutional
Next thread: Yo, Prince Harry: Nazi costumes are NOT your friend.
Previous thread: 8.9 earthquake in SE Asia; Ensuing tidal waves kill thousands
(890 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The House of Representatives is holding
- Grimis, More UNSCAM Stuff (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court rejects rules for Federal SentencingRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

©2001-2018 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.157 seconds.