Dane County Court Case Study

However recently the court had deemed the original sentence to be inadequate due to the gravity of the offense as well as the effect the incident had on the victim and her family.

He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance. -Navy Times

4. McDonald’s was liable for Mr. Faverty as per the jury’s decision. McDonald’s knew or had reason to know the number of hours Theurer had been working. It had a limit on working

They additionally used the testimony of the mother, saying that she had suspected Rachell in light of the fact that he coordinated her child's description of his attacker. In June, 2003, he was finally convicted and sentenced to spend the next 40 years in prison.

The supporters for this Supreme Court case were John J. Burnett, who contended for the respondent and was delegated by the Supreme Court. Then again, Mark V. Meierhenry contended the reason for the applicant. The Court toppled the sentence in light of the fact that it was "unfeeling and abnormal". Equity Powell composed for the five-part greater part, while Chief Justice Burger composed for the four-part contradict. Equity Powell contemplated that Helm had "got the penultimate sentence for moderately minor criminal lead." Chief Justice Burger's worries mirrored his strict constructionist demeanor: "Assume a few states rebuff extremely a wrongdoing that the Court sees as trifling or unimportant? I can see no restricting standard in the Court's holding." The dialect of the assessment, be that as it may, ceased from striking down state statutes setting least sentencing rules for recidivism. The dominant part feeling called for special cases to the statutes shielding the established flexibility from brutal and uncommon discipline. What's more, the Court tried to utilize this specific case to clear

The victim wrote a 7000-word letter to the judge, in which she described how she felt that night, how she felt afterwards and how her life has changed since this incident. The letter also spoke up for sexual assault victims, advising them to speak out about their cases and to seek justice. Despite the victim giving harrowing details of that night, the suspect was only sentenced to six months instead of six years (what the Prosecutors requested), because of the “severe impact”, it could have on Brock Turner (Alexandra,

On March 14, 2013, the writer of this work attended a criminal sentencing docket at the Morgan County Courthouse in the Circuit Court in Decatur, Alabama. The Honorable Glenn Thompson was presiding over the criminal sentencing docket. The docket was five pages long with multiple attorneys and defendants present in the courtroom.

Late last year rapper Meek mill was sentenced to two to four years in prison for violating his probation. He was caught popping wheelies on his dirt bike and was arrested and given this sentence because of a 2008 incident were he was charged with drugs and possession of a gun. As soon as the news hit the media there was a backlash at the judge's decision. Meek mill gained support from everyone including Jay-Z who said “ The sentence handed down by the Judge ... is unjust and heavy handed.”

Spohn, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel discuss Steffensmeier’s (1998) focal concerns perspective. They conclude that the focal concerns which guide prosecutors’ charging decisions are the seriousness of the crime, the amount of harm to the victim, and the suspect’s culpability. They are more likely to

“Petitioner’s sentence is long but so is his criminal history,” were the words of Sandra Day O'Connor, now a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. A decision made for the Ewing V. California 2003 case. Gary Ewing, a man who stole three golf clubs, each worth $399, was charged with twenty five years of prison. “Three strikes and you are out” was the cause of the long sentence. The major argument of this case was said to be that the twenty five years sentence violated the eighth amendment, “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

In the article, “Supreme Court Decision Focuses State Attention on Sentencing Regimes,” written by Don Stemen and Daniel F. Wilhelm, the authors expand the idea of the actions taken to determine the criminal sentence in the Blakely v. Washington case. In the case, Blakely argued that this sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts legally essential to his sentence (Blakely v. Washington, n.d). During the sentencing process, numerous aspects has to be taken into consideration to give the defendant an appropriate sentence.

O’Hear (2007) argues that there are laws that require the prosecution to consult with the victims before reaching a plea agreement implemented in certain states (p.324). Working with the crown prosecutor is important for the victims. Although there are no direct laws stating that the victims can be involved in how long a punishment should be for a defendant, there are new implications that allow the victim to be made aware of the process. Some laws have come into force involving victim rights, “Federal law now provides that victims should be consulted for their views on the proposed terms of any negotiated plea” (Welling, 1987, p.341).

In an almost seeming “backfire” of intent, federal sentencing guidelines can be argued to have increased the potential for disparities in sentencing through the proliferation of differential plea-bargaining and charging negotiations (Eisenstein, Kramer, & Miller, 2005) (Albonetti, 1997). These negotiations often rely upon what information of value the criminal may have to sell, or what personal characteristics the defendant may possess that have weight on the prosecutor’s charging decision (Albonetti, 1997). Charging discretion is a departure from the federal guidelines’ intent of having the outcome of sentencing being uniformly derived from an equation that consists of the crime committed, the addition of factors that may heighten the penalty (for example use of a gun), the subject’s previous criminal history, and where the subject’s “score” falls within a predetermined sentencing matrix. Using this methodology, factors such as sex, race, marital status, employment history, community ties, etc., are considered irrelevant for a judge’s consideration (Albonetti, 1997). They are not however irrelevant for the prosecutor’s consideration in negotiations about charging decisions that would have an effect on the overall penalty “score” of the convicted criminal, and thus could be used as leverage points in guilty-plea negotiations (Albonetti, 1997). Returning to Chief Justice Robert’s baseball analogy, the federal prosecutor is now in the position to call the pitch, make the pitch, and even decide whether-or-not to swing for the fences or walk the

A Trial Chamber enjoys broad discretion in determining a sentence. The sentence must be determined by weighing and balancing all the relevant factors. The weight given to an individual factor and the balancing of all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence is at the core of a Trial Chamber’s exercise of discretion. However, a Trial Chamber’s failure to consider one of the mandatory factors listed in rule 145 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence can amount to a legal error in the context of challenging the Trial Chamber’s discretionary decision on sentencing.

Discuss factors that affect sentencing decisions, including the purposes of punishment and the role of the victim