So how should we handle it? In your example, theoretically the sentence could be anywhere from 500 days (serve it all concurrently) to over 2700 years. Should we say “The judge can assign a sentence based on the total badness”? What happens if half of the verdicts are overturned - do you cut the sentence in half, or redo the sentencing, or does the judge (what if it’s a different judge this time?) have to go back and rethink how bad the whole cluster of crimes was? If 100,000 counts of fraud merits a life sentence to one judge, should 90,000? 50,000? 100? What’s the dividing line? When do you move from a life sentence to X years? It looks like what you want to do is remove some specific rules for sentencing multiple crimes and replace them with “Let the judge make up a sentence”. They do already have a certain amount of latitude in sentencing.
That’s what you get with the system as it is - depending on how the rules are drafted, the same crime could merit an extremely short sentence (all served concurrently) to an indefinite one (all served consecutively).
That’s not a problem with how I would handle it. It is a problem inherent in a mechanical approach.
Assume all 100,000 sentences were to be served consecutively, under the current system. What difference would it make if half the verdicts were overturned? Cutting a sentence from 3,000 years to 1,500 years is pointless.
To my mind, things like small-scale fraud should have a sentencing range that refects a certain moral reality - that being, that no matter how many “counts”, it simply is not as “bad” as stuff like rape and murder. I have no problems sentencing a rapist and murderer to life in prision, but a harder time with sentencing guidelines that would (in this hypothetical) sentence a person to exactly the same think, based on a relatively petty crime repeated a bunch of times.
The legislation should impose reasonable sentencing ranges, leaving the position within the range to be determined by the person who has heard the evidence.
It may become possible to clone humans within the foreseeable future. Then we could deal with those multi-hundred-year sentences by making enough clones of the perp and putting them all in jail.
Similarly for capital punishment for mass murderers. When a crime so heinous is committed that everyone says “The death penalty is too good for that guy”, then sentence the perp to multiple death sentences, and make enough clones to carry them all out.
I’m not an expert on the US legal system, but it seems to me you are searching for a solution to a problem that does not exist. The current situation allows for sentences to be handed out as concurrent or consecutive, as the circumstances dictate. Do you have any examples of where this has resulted in unfairness?
Also, you could argue that in your hypothetical, 100,000 counts of fraud could mean that 100,000 people are out $500. So this perp’s crimes have affected far more people than the crime of a murderer. Not that I am trying to equate the two, just playing devil’s advocate really.
Were the defendants or the victims familys ever in the courtroom? If so did they try to influence you?
Did the defendant or victim testify?
Before the trial started, did they give you an approximation about how long it would take so you could take off your job?
There is some talk about allowing members of the jury to ask witnesses questions. Was there a time you wished you could have asked something?
What I found out on jury duty is most people with careers dont want to or cannot take time off even though they would make excellent members of a jury. Others cannot be on juries because of family. Those that are left tend to be retired persons or those without demanding jobs. Did you find this to be the case?
My complaint is that this appears an awkward and absurd circumlocution, using manipulation of a complex accounting to provide a false sense of precision in order to create the illusion that judges are not, in fact, judging. Why not just call a spade a spade?
There exists a considerable literature criticising the Us federal sentencing guidelines on these issues, but thsi probably isn’t the place to discuss it. Particularly, for example, in the realm of drug sentencing, the ways the guidelines are drafted are alleged to create lots of absurd outcomes, once all the “accounting” is taken into consideration.
It creates an absurdity. To take it to an extreme level, a computer phishing scheme probably creates millions of acts of fraud, which (depending on how the rules are drafted) could be counted as one count, or millions of counts.
The defendant’s family was in the court - his mom was there for the entire trial, I think one or two of his sisters, not sure if his wife was there. The victim’s partner was there for part of the trial including when the victim testified and when we delivered our verdict.
No, none of those people tried to influence us. As I said earlier in the thread the trial was pretty much free of the drama that you see on TV or movies.
The defendant did not testify. The victim did - she was one of the first (if not the first) witnesses.
Yes, we were given the start date, anticipated end date and the complete court schedule (be there ready to start at this time, court gets out at this time, court not in session on the following days). I work for a law firm so time off for jury duty is not a problem, just had to notify my manager.
Hm, not sure about that. I don’t recall anything where we really wanted to have a specific question answered. I understand that only certain information can be presented in court and there may be reasons that the jury doesn’t know about as to why some things are not asked. I’d be a bit leery about the jury asking questions unless it’s kept under tight control, otherwise you’ve got the potential for 12 people unfamiliar with the legal system to bog things down.
I’ve served on two juries and I’d say that most people do not want to serve regardless of whether they’d be a good juror or not. People exaggerate, make up excuses, pretend to not understand the language, etc. Jobs are certainly an issue for many people.
Our jury was very good, IMHO. We had a mix of folks ranging from two people in their early 20s (college student, single mom) up through a guy in his late 70s (a financial consultant to large companies, he’s still working). I think that there was one retiree, everyone else still working, all kinds of jobs.
I understand that when this is allowed, the jurors submit the questions to the judge in writing. The judge decides whether each question is proper, and if so, asks the question himself or herself.
Society decided that it’s 18 to sign a contract, 16 to drive, 21 to purchase alcohol, 35 to be President, anywhere from 15 to 18 to consent to sex and, for certain crimes under certain circumstances, 15 to be tried as an adult.
You don’t have to be 18 to sign a contract. You just have to be 18 to have one you signed enforced against you.
Good point, Councillor, obviously a four year old could write a signature on a piece of paper but it wouldn’t be enforceable. Equally obviously, everyone pretty much knew what I meant. Is an invalid contract still a contract?
A minor is allowed to enter into a contract for “necessaries” such as food, clothing and shelter. For example, someone who is younger than 18 can buy food and the seller can’t be forced to refund the money just because the buyer is a minor.
Good point…I know that we had a few questions during deliberations which had to be submitted to the court in writing. These were all clarifications on the jury instructions though.
When I was on a jury we were allowed to ask questions. We would write it on a scrap of paper and raise our hand. The bailiff would take it to the judge who would ask the question if he thought that it was appropriate.
We didn’t do that although we were encouraged to take copious notes (since it was a long trial with a lot of witnesses and evidence).
Did they allow you to take your notes home with you? Wondering about would-be authors.
Have you ever seen the movie “12 Angry men” with Henry Fonda? What did you think of it?
I think what gets to me is a jury has to go on evidence presented. NOT things they think of themselves.
No. See some of my original comments - our notepads remained in the courtroom and then the jury deliberation room and they were destroyed afterwards.
No, I have never seen the movie.
The point of the jury is to judge the facts as presented. There may be particular reasons why certain things are not entered into evidence and it’s unfair for the jury to speculate and judge somebody based on that. I am comfortable with this system.