As far as I know, almost every state has them (so thus I assume it won’t be necessary for me to provide a cite). In my state, Michigan, they seem to apply to every serious crime. Sentencing guidelines are supposedly what everyone wants. And more specifically, they are supposed to eliminate the injustice of criminals getting away with murder (both figuratively and literally). But have sentencing guidelines completely taken the concept of mercy away from our legal system?
Think about it. In the past, before these guidelines, there were times judges must’ve felt compelled to show mercy for various reasons. Perhaps the criminal led an especially hard life. Or to borrow from The Simpson’s, sometimes people have to steal bread to feed their starving children (i.e., out of need).
Doesn’t it also eleminate the injustice of criminals being sentenced to long? If the guidelines say 5-10 you’re not going to be sentenced for 15 years. If we’re talking about three strike laws or mandatory sentencing then that’s a whole new kettle of worms.
I don’t see a problem with them. I do think they should have sunset clauses in them so that they can be adjusted if they appear out of whack. It’s very hard politically to kill a crime law, so sunset provisions would allow for an automatic review. Drug offenses are probably the most likely to appear unfair and most likely to need review/change based on the times.
Precisely. The Federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses are especially out of whack. And their impact on immigration status is even worse.
In a former job, I used to interpret for deportation hearings in state and Federal prisons (and you thought you had fun business trips!).
I’ll never forget the case I saw in which a mother of four was convicted of conspiring to traffic in narcotics; the facts of the case were basically that she was living with her boyfriend, and was in the bathroom one day when she overheard a large drug deal going down in her livingroom. She was previously unaware that her boyfriend was involved in that sort of thing, and no evidence was produced during the immigration hearing to suggest otherwise. It wouldn’t have made a difference, anyway; immigration judges have to accept criminal convictions for what they are and take it from there.
As her kids were home, and the possibility of armed confrontation in her livingroom if she tried to get them to leave wasn’t terribly palatable, she just hid out in the bathroom and waited. Unfortunately, that was right when the Feds busted in. She was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics, which meant that even though she had been a permanent resident since she was a small child, she got a mandatory minimum of 10 years, after which she was to be deported – basically, if you’re convicted of trafficking in narcotics, nothing saves you from deportation, or at least that was the case law back then. Contrast that to aggravated assault or rape, for which you at least had the possibility that the immigration judge would exercise discretion in your favor. Why ten years for a very minor role (if any at all) in a crime in which the victims choose to participate, vs. sometimes a few months or even probation for violent felonies? That’s completely screwed up.
Her kids, as U.S. citizens, had the right to remain in the U.S. But since their father was not in the picture (the convicted boyfriend wasn’t their father), and since there was nobody available to take care of them in the U.S., they would have to be in foster care until she got out of prison and then return to her native Third World country with their mom.
Now I’m not a fan of narcotics traffickers, but that seems completely disproportionate.
I think it’s better to give judges the discretion to sentence convicts as appropriate. For example, I happen to own a copy of the 1930 California Penal Code, and it’s interesting to note that the sentence for rape was supposed to be “from one to fifty years”. I was amazed that a particular crime could have such a wild variation in the sentencing provisions, but it occurred to me that rape, in particular, technically covers a very broad range acts, including consensual sex between a 19 year old man and a 17 year old girl. Without defending rape in general, I think it’s safe to say that this 19-year-old man would have been a good candidate for the one-year sentence. Probably suspended. I’m sure other crimes have similar ranges of actual evil intent and I think they should be taken into account.
It’s not even that these mandatory laws remove mercy; they often remove common sense altogether from the justice system, as in the type of case cited by Eva Luna. If you want some other examples of federal drug convictions that defy sanity, read the drug chapter in Eric Schlosser’s book, Reefer Madness.
It’s also funny that many conservatives who cry “states’ rights” when the federal government tries to do anything are not particularly concerned about states’ rights when it comes to the drug issue. So, a state like California can choose to allow use of medical marijuana under certain circumstances, but this is effectively nullified because the feds jump in and prosecute people under federal statutes.
Mandatory sentencing isn’t a violation of mercy, but a violation of justice. All crimes are contextual, and there’s really no way to set sentences in stone when there may be complex circumstances, either for or against the accused. The concept of “justice” requires that a judge consider and weigh all the facts relevent to a case, and formulate a fair and objective punishment (or none at all). If, because of extenuating circumstances, someone deserves no punishment for a crime, that’s justice, not mercy. Actual mercy is a violation of justice, and thus has no place in a judicial system.
?