Judicial discretion

Sentences: Judicial Discretion Twenty-nine offences in the Criminal Code have a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment time. The majority of these sentences were introduced with Bill C-68, a set of firearms-related legislation introduced in 1995. In addition, there are also mandatory minimum sentences for several other offences, such as child prostitution, betting, pool-making, and impaired driving. Mandatory minimum sentences impose legislated punishments, furthermore, there is no discretion for

Current mandatory minimum sentencing laws are in dire need of reform. A mandatory minimum sentence is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. As a result, there are irrevocable prison terms of a specific length for people convicted of particular federal and state crimes. As of January 2014, more than 50 percent of inmates in federal prisons are serving time for drug offenses, and more than 60 percent of people incarcerated are racial and ethnic minorities. The use of safety

partisan issue people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Kamila Harris, and Cory Booker have all come together to try to fight this overreach of legislative power. There is a constitutional necessity for the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branch to provide a check on how legislation is enforced and adjudicated. The separation of powers that was established in the United States constitution is possibly the most advertised and praised part of our founding document. Giving each branch

The judicial processes that have been adopted by the current criminal justice system of the United States of America include mandatory minimums that diminish the importance of certain factors in a case such as the context of the situation and the power of judges to decide on an appropriate sentence; furthermore, they result in more serious, yet overlooked, implications of racial bias and unfair plea bargaining. Mandatory minimums are strict sentences that a judge must abide by when determining how

As an intervener, I represent an outside agency who does not have direct and substantial interest in the case at hand, but has a definite interest and perspectives that are essential to the case at bar. For the respondent’s, the Canadian Bar Association was an appropriate intervener for two reasons: the CBA had a strong interest in the mandatory minimums within the impugned legislation and the perspective of implementing an exemption would act as a good alternative to amending the legislation in

Issue Statement “Like the ancient tension between fixed and indeterminate sentencing, there’s an ancient debate about judicial discretion in sentencing.” Proponents argue that mandatory minimum sentencing can place a significant hardship on correctional budgets while at the same time, threatening an increase of an inmate’s claim that their rights pursuant to the Eighth Amendment protection of cruel and unusual punishment have been violated. Opponents of fixed sentencing tend to posit that mandatory

Overcrowding prisons at the cost of the taxpayers’ dollar, people who need rehab sitting in prison for years at a time instead of getting the help that they need, and judges cannot do anything about it. Mandatory minimum sentencing has taken away judges’ discretion when sentencing cases. Drug offenses often receive heavier sentences than they should due to the use of mandatory minimums leaving people to question the fairness of the justice system. The use of mandatory minimums when sentencing drug offenses

The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat

banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as

While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing