Prisons, Mandatory Sentencing etc

So, in my country, they're planning on introducing minimum sentencing laws, removing 2 for 1 time (where each day spent in jail before your trial has finished counts as 2 days in jail) and some war on drugs style stuff.

I'll expand it to an international discussion, what are your views on the subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

I personally don't have a problem in the slightest for mandatory sentencing for the top tier of crimes (rape, murder, assault). I... don't think it's the greatest idea for things like petty theft or drug use, though. There should be rehab for that, not ridiculous jail sentences...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Would there be a certain incarceration rate that we might be aiming at?

For instance, according to the statistics...

Canada jails nearly as much as China does. Canada jails 117 per 100 000, China jails 120 per 100 000.

On the other hand, USA jails significantly more than even the 2nd place country of Russia, at a rate of 742 per 100 000. That's a high enough rate that USA jails more than China, in absolute total number of prisoners.

Well, like I said, the US Prison System needs to focus on keeping people who didn't really do anything, comparatively, out of the prison walls and in society as a productive member thereof. Very few in the US Prison System actually really belong there for their whole stay. Those who do belong there need a longer sentence (if not a bullet to the head).

So, the entire thing is messed up, yes. And it costs us about $60 billion a year, so...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I don't agree with mandatory sentencing because it's impossible to foresee every circumstance when drafting such a law. Mandatory sentences mean that there is no way that a judge can be just in those edge cases.

Recommended sentences, and perhaps a system where more than just one individual judge is required to deviate from them or the judge must justify why the sentence should be lower, are more supportable I think.

A brighter future for a darker age.

I'm a sort of a technocrat when it comes to the justice system. I basically despise the concept of a jury-trial. I don't want a bunch of people who weren't intelligent enough to get out of jury duty to determine whether someone was guilty/innocent. I'd rather a panel of judges.

One judge for summary offences. Three judges for more serious ones. And then you have the supreme court.

That gets rid of mandatory sentencing completely, since you have enough competent judges to more accurately determine how much jail time or fines are necessary. I find it rather obtrusive for it to be a democracy. Someone's innocence isn't determined by a stupid ballot.

I could see a judge panel for sentencing, but not for convicting. The whole point of the jury system is to prevent state abuse of the courts, and I'd rather it stayed as such...

I am now known as Flyboy.

How exactly was it supposed to prevent state abuse? I thought making courts public made it less prone to abuse.

...I don't understand. You just answered your own question. Courts are public and run by jury so that the state can't just go "oh, you're guilty, the end" though the judges.

It's a product of the Admiralty Courts of the British Empire in the pre-Independence days...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Not quite what I meant :P

Publicly accessible but not run by members of the public. I mean journalists can go in and report on bad conduct, so judges can't just do corrupt things without people noticing and demanding their resignation. On the other hand, juries can be incredibly incompetent and nobody can do a thing about it.

Yet the public is the actual representation of society, not the judges. Personally, I couldn't fathom why one would want a trial by judge, rather than by jury.

I guess we could have jury training, but that would take too long, be too expensive, and it would be liable to end up biasing the jurors...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I'd note that in the US, defendants can request a bench trial instead of a jury trial (there may be exceptions, but I don't know of any). A bench trial is one where there is no jury and the judge makes the decision. Trial by jury is a right, but it can be waived if the defendant thinks it's in their best interest.

Bench trials are generally requested by defendants worried that a jury is likely to convict them based on emotion regardless of the law. Someone who thinks they can prove their factual innocence but that a jury would think they deserve the punishment anyway.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Well, it's supposed to be the judge's job to overturn that kind of conviction if the actual evidence isn't good enough. They did it on Law & Order once...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think that's a lot harder and less likely than Law And Order likely made it appear.

Also, having a jury verdict of guilty and for the judge to strike it down is likely to cause a lot more of an uproar than to select a bench trial in the first place.

Most defendants do not want a bench trial because they think the odds of a jury acquitting them despite the evidence is more likely, and they're probably right. A good defense lawyer has a fair chance of putting enough doubt in a jury's mind to make at least one juror hold out against conviction.

edited 24th Aug '11 10:15:48 AM by Morven

A brighter future for a darker age.

In hindsight, it might have been a civil case, too.

I don't know. If I were a criminal, I would rather take the jury. It only takes one unconvinced juror out of 12 to get the mistrial. Compare to a judge who (hopefully) knows the laws and is slightly less likely to be very biased, and who decides alone.

Mathematics says the jury is the better choice.

Anyhow, I don't know, we have manslaughter for cases of homicide by accident, so I see no reason why there shouldn't be a minimum sentence for that. We would need to reform the definitions of statutory rape to go with a minimum sentence on rape, but I would have no problem with that afterwards. Assault... bleh... we would need degrees of assault and variations thereof for that...

I am now known as Flyboy.

We need to get rid of privatized prisons if we're to have any hope of prison stucture being based on anything other than profitability.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Prisons are privitized? Holy shit, when I wrote my essay on this I never found that. I took it for granted that they'd all be state institutions.

No wonder the damn thing is so expensive...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Only some states have them. In others, all state prisons are state government institutions.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Still, that would bring in inherent unethicality to a system striving for high standards for ethics. After all, prisoners aren't a product. There's nothing to sell. So the only way to make money off them is to refuse to give them something they would otherwise need in order to pocket the (likely government-subsidized) money that would have gone to that...

I am now known as Flyboy.

While I don't deny that our legal system needs improvement, I really hate this idea. Some of us actually care enough about our country and our legal system to see participation as a good thing.

Do you not remember the fairly recent case, where two judges were found guilty of deliberately sentancing teens to maximum sentances in exchange for paybacks from the private company running the prisons juvenile detention facilities? That is the kind of thing that jury trials make less likely.

Yes, thank you.

edited 24th Aug '11 11:05:35 AM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

See this Wikipedia article for more on that scandal.

A brighter future for a darker age.

I've heard that half of people appointed to jury duty try to get out of it. That would suggest that it's only a matter of time before the majority tries to get themselves out of jury duty once and for all..

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

I never understood why one wouldn't want to be a juror. I would be fascinated by it...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I believe that a judge can summarily turn over a guilty verdict if they believe that their is literally no way that jury could have come to that conclusion by the evidence presented.

Of course 80% - 90% percent of cases in the US never get to a trail because of plea bargains.

Waste of taxpayer dollars.