The SC made the right call

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 629595.htm

Although I think our jury system is flawed, sentencing should never be carried out by political appointees. If an uneducated, Jerry Springer watching jury is all we have other than judges, they should make the call.

[vaulos]

*shiver* That reminds me of the old communist argument, "How could 1 billion Chinese people really be wrong!?"

Americans are fond of saying that we are a nation of laws. Allowing juries to choose punishments if a great way of sidestepping the constraints of law. Juries are prone to letting men/women go free, because they felt bad for the defendant or because they were dazzled by flashy lawyers. They also can convict based not on evidence but rather upon pre-concieved notions such as race, sex, religion, organizational membership, etc. They are also prone to give harsher sentences for the same.

The purpose to the law is to give some sense of stability to the world in which we live. We want to be secure in our persons, and the law allows us that by saying "if someone commits this crime against you, this is thier punishment". Or by telling us that if we are accused of a crime, our guilt will be judged by our peers, and if found guilty a reasonable sentence will result. By allowing juries to decide the penalty, we degrade that stablity.

Also, though I won't go into it, it favors those criminals with the better lawyer, i.e., the rich. The poor WILL get the shaft by doing this.

[Relbeek Einre]

Judges *are* political appointees, or directly elected.

[Eidolon Faer]

Judicial elections are rather strange animals compared to legislative or executive elections in many states, Relbeek.

In Minnesota, as I understand it, a campaign for the Judiciary cannot include such things as discussion of issues, political endorsements, or most forms of advertising. I think you're supposed to decide based on which judge has a middle initial you like better.

School Boards tend to be the same way: stable for very long periods of time unless the voters get pissed. Then every incumbant loses reelection for several years.

[Klast Brell]

If an uneducated, Jerry Springer watching jury is all we have other than judges, they should make the call.

Better to put Judges up for election where they can be chosen by an uneducated, Jerry Springer watching electorate.

[Relbeek Einre]

This is true, Eidolon - well, minus the exaggeration. However, a judge's record, if sufficiently controversial, will result in his defeat for reelection. I've seen it happen twice back when I was close enough to the judiciary to pay attention (granted, both times it was not for judges making politically controversial decision, but for judges' bad decisions and practices on a more objective level.

That said, I oppose mandatory sentencing guidelines on general principle. They result in stupid things like "three strikes" laws that give people life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza.

[Cartumandua]

I'm with Embar. The sentencing guidelines that allowed, in fact required, judges to extend sentences of criminals based on evidence not proven to the jury are deeply flawed. If it's relevant to the crime, then it should be in front of a jury.

[Relbeek Einre]

Yes, Cart. I believe judges should be able to adjust sentences DOWN from jury recommendations, not up.

Of course, for many crimes judges, and only judges, determine sentencing.

[Rsak]

I'm with Embar. The sentencing guidelines that allowed, in fact required, judges to extend sentences of criminals based on evidence not proven to the jury are deeply flawed. If it's relevant to the crime, then it should be in front of a jury.

I actually partially disagree with this. A suspect's criminal history should not be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the individual for the crime he is being punished for (with a few exceptions).

That information however is germane to the punichment he should receive. If the case is one in which the jury assigns the sentence then they should see this information after they have determined guilt or innocence. If it is a case where the judge provideds the sentence then he should look at this once the guilt or innocence has been determined by the jury.

That said, I fail to see how ensuring some consistency in sentencing is a bad thing.

[Relbeek Einre]

Guilt or innocence should be determined by the probative evidence.

Sentencing should be determined by the defendant's record, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances of the crime.

The only sentence where the probative evidence should factor is the death penalty.