Is there anyone here that believes in "mandatory sentencing laws"

[Toots]

IMO Mandatory sentencing laws take away the whole purpose of a judge. A fair and impartial judge that takes into account all the circumstances involved in the situation. I can understand sentencing guidelines and think they are beneficial. Mandatory sentencing on the other hand is government overbearing. Except with one possibility. Crimes committed with a firearm. I think there should be mandatory sentencing for that. Not necessarily a predetermined time period like five years in prison but mandatory jail time with the amount left up to judge and jury. Nobody that creates a crime with a firearm should be allowed to walk scott free. Well that's my opinion and everyone knows what they say about opinions, they are like assholes, everyone has one..

[ComerPerro]

1. you do kind of defeat your own point by mentioning your exception

[Toots]

7. Maybe I mistated my point then, I am against mandatory minimum sentences

I think some crimes shoud require sentencing but that the minimum sentencing should not be pre-established. All crimes committed with a firearm should require a jail sentence but the amount should be left up to the judge as there are always circumstances involved that need to be considered. To just say mandatory five years like California has is IMO not correct. :shrug: Do you believe people can hold opposing views on subjects or is everything completely cut and dried to you?

[ComerPerro]

9. don't be a dick. No need to fucking insult me

"Do you believe people can hold opposing views on subjects or is everything completely cut and dried to you?"


Screw you. You are the one who said there should be no mandatory sentencing, and then in that very same post you go and say that it should exist for gun crimes. I am just pointing out to you that your exception is not the only one that people might find. So if we go from "there will be no mandatory sentence" to "except for these circumstances:", that kinda defeats the point, doesn't it?

[Boojatta]

14. Are you sure that it defeats the point?

What if the OP had said that no matter what numerical values you assign to A and B, you should accept that A/B has a numerical value, unless B is equal to zero. Does that defeat the point? After all, if you start making an exception for B equal to zero, then a precedent is created and pretty soon other exceptions will be created. Then students could lose marks on math tests for dividing by all sorts of prohibited values of B besides zero.

[ComerPerro]

15. not at all related. Not even close

Mathematic principles are not open for debate the same way civics and philosophy and legislation are.

[Boojatta]

17. Would you say that civics, philosophy, and legislation are

very cut-and-dried in such a way that we can be sure that every principle of civics, philosophy, and legislation either is true without any exceptions or is not a principle that can be relied upon at all?

In other words, if you find a single exception to a proposed principle of civics, philosophy, or legislation, then have you shown that the principle cannot be patched up and should instead be simply abandoned?

[ComerPerro]

19. it doesn't apply to this debate, so it is irrelevant.

[porphyrian]

2. I'm against all mandatory minimum sentences.

Legislators should only set the highest punishment possible for breaking a law they make.

[beevul]

29. LOL

"Legislators should only set the highest punishment possible for breaking a law they make."

Let me modify that just a little:

Legislators should face highest punishment possible for every a law they break.

Present for the last 6 years - government, in particular.

[porphyrian]

31. Heh, that can be the second stanza. - n/t

[mike_c]

3. no-- and I include your exception in that disagreement....

Mandatory sentencing is just another way to politicize the justice system-- ultimately it's no different than the recent WH attempts to bias the US Attorneys. Legislators enact mandatory sentencing laws to impress their constituents and so they can claim toughness on crime during their campaigns. They are politics played at the expense of justice.

[porphyrian]

8. Don't forget that prison is big business, and they have an interest in keeping them full.

The prison construction industry, the corporate prison industry, the prison food service industry and, increasingly, the number of corporations who use prisoners for slave labor all benefit from perpetually over-populated prisons. The prison industrial complex is second only to the military industrial complex.

[mike_c]

11. yep-- as a Californian I'm appalled that my state is on track...

...to spend more on prisons than on higher education in five years. That state is mind boggling: the state will spend more to incarcerate its citizens than to educate them.

[porphyrian]

18. It's no mistake. It's by design. - n/t

[scrinmaster]

4. There should be much lower sentences for people convicted of non-violent crimes,

And much more severe ones for people convicted of violent ones. End the war on drugs, and you'll have room to lock up murderers, rapists, and kidnappers for the rest of their lives.

[Boojatta]

5. How about a mandatory minimum of two days of jail time for violent crimes...

committed with a knife, but not a firearm? Would that be okay or would it unreasonably usurp the decision-making authority of a judge or jury who might wish to sentence someone to just one day in jail for such a crime?

[ThomWV]

6. There has to be a maximum sentence that can not be exceeded

But it should be at the Judge's discression to impose any lower sentence, either as a fine or as time.

[rzemanfl]

10. There is a crime here in Florida that carried 4 sentencing points

until October 1st of last year. Now it carries 56 points, which works out to over two years in prison. Our legislature is populated by Republican asshats who cater to the "Terri was murdered" wing of the jesus nut faction. These mandatory sentences are utter bullshit.

[DBoon]

12. Eliminating the judge is the whole purpose

satisfying 40 years of propaganda about "liberal judges"

[High Plains]

13. Mandatory minimums make the judge little more than a clerk.

They put huge power in the hands of prosecutors, who determine how long someone is going to prison by their charging decisions. With more than 95% of criminal cases resolved by plea bargains, the charging decision by prosecutors is critical. (Of course, this is also why they charge somebody with as many different offenses as they can creatively compile--so they can negotiate down from there. Gee, if you're facing 40 to life, that 5-year plea bargain doesn't look so bad.)

We must destroy mandatory minimum sentencing. We are a sick, sadistic society.

[Captain Hilts]

16. It's part of an attempt to take discretion - and racism - out of sentencing.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[sandnsea]

20. It writes racism into sentencing

Crack mandates 20 years, cocaine 5 years. Shoplifting might not have a mandate, where something like phone card fraud would. Depending on what's gang related in a specific area. Stuff like that. If the mandates weren't racist, you might have a point. But the point of mandatory sentencing was always to stop the bleeding heart liberal judges from letting murderers walk the streets. I don't know where you got the idea it had anything to do with preventing racism.

[Captain Hilts]

21. It was an "attempt" to take discretion out of the process. It has institutionalized...

unfair sentencing for some crimes.

[sandnsea]

25. I agree with that

Just not that it was an attempt to alleviate racism in the judicial system. That's a friggin' joke. On any given day, 12% of African American men are in a jail or prison, largely due to mandatory sentencing. The people who write these laws know what they're doing.

[High Plains]

27. It was an attempt to remove discretion; it was seen as a reform...

...but it hasn't worked out that way. Consider the crack cocaine laws. 87% of those prosecuted by the feds are black, even though more whites than blacks use crack. Because of drug panics dating back to the mid-1980s, five grams of crack gets you a mandatory minimum five years, while it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to get the same sentence.

Mandatory minimum sentencing only works to keep the prisons full and them uppity black folks down.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Saying It In Kindiness, This Is One Of The Most Outwardly Hypocritical Threads I Think I've Seen LOL

Really, it comes off as a bit silly. It can't even be taken seriously when you really think about it.

If you wanted to be able to make a point about crimes committed with guns, why didn't ya just come out and start a thread saying so instead of the roundabout masked way? LOL

[prayin4rain]

23. I think the problem is that there is no such thing as a

....fair and impartial judge. I believe in minimuim and maximum sentencing laws. I also believe that the system probably needs an overhaul.

[Orsino]

24. I dunno. As far as Libby goes, I'd say the minimum...

...should be something greater than zero. For repeat offenders, I don't think I have a problem with some minimum.

I don't like the three-strikes mandatory life sentences.

[prayin4rain]

26. Yeah that three strikes law is appalling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[High Plains]

28. And California taxpayers are getting reamed to pay for it.

How's that prison construction budget coming?

[AZBlue]

30. Depends on the crime. Here in AZ drunk driving has mandatory sentencing

and I think that's a good thing. That means that no matter how much you can pay for a lawyer, you're still doing the same time as someone who couldn't afford one at all.

[BlooInBloo]

32. I think it's mostly a racist intrusion on separation of powers.