Defendants are regularly condemned to years, decades, or life in prison for minor infractions because of minimum sentencing statutes. If judges had more discretion in sentencing, then sentences could be more proportional to the crime, more specific to the individual defendant, and minimize the negative impact of minimum sentencing laws without inherently needing those laws repealed.
"Fifteen states (and Puerto Rico) give judges the power to dismiss prosecutions “in the interests of justice,” or, in other words, to declare that, regardless of the strength of the evidence, a dismissal would get us closer to justice than would continued prosecution. Four states (and Guam) have de minimis dismissal provisions, which serve the same ends."
The Appeal
February 8, 2018
Read More"Judicial discretion is necessary to the proper discharge of our Constitutional obligations as a separate – and independent – branch of government. Legislatures simply cannot write laws to address all situations which find their way into court or that develop as a case makes its way through the legal system. Judges are present during proceedings and hear the evidence firsthand. From this vantage point a judge must have some discretion to apply the law to the facts and procedure of the pending dispute."
The National Judicial College
May 21, 2015
Read More