4 ms·

> Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientif

> Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors. I'm pretty sure that's not true * Judges often complain about sentencing requirements in the law, and those requirements are a or the major factor in the high incarceration rates in the 'War on Drugs' and for 'Three Strikes' offenders - so certainly they are prevalent. * I'm pretty sure judges look carefully at other sentences for similar crimes and criminals (precedent), and I know many courts use formulas that consider past convictions and other factors in determining a sentence. * Sentences can be appealed, so the judge has to follow certain standards to avoid having their sentence overturned by a higher court.

rayiner 10y ago
> Judges often complain about sentencing requirements in the law The laws, e.g. the U.S. sentencing guidelines, give you a pretty wide range for any given scenario. > I'm pretty sure judges look carefully at other sentences for similar crimes and criminals (precedent) Not really, at least not formally. Within the guideline range, it's mostly about extenuating or aggravating circumstances unique to the case, not a comparison with other similar cases. > and I know many courts use formulas that consider past convictions and other factors in determining a sentence. The sentencing guidelines do use formulas (add X points for prior criminal history, add Y points for amount of money stolen). That doesn't mean they're not totally ad-hoc and unscientific. Here are the federal sentencing guidelines for larceny, theft, etc: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archive/2011-2b11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archiv.... E.g. if the amount lost was between $200,000 and $400,000, you add 12 points to the score. If it involved more than 250 victims, you add 6 points. There is no science or rigor here. Just the drafters of the guidelines picking round numbers of dollars for one column and increasing the other column two levels at a time. What purpose does it serve to sentence someone differently based on whether they stole $350,000 or $450,000? And what impact does the difference in sentences have on things we care about: deterrence, recidivism, etc? It doesn't: It's quackery. It adopts the pretense of science without being in any way scientific.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Pardon my asking: Your profile says you are an appellate lawyer; do you handle criminal law? I'm not an attorney so I don't have much more to say. I do happen to know a lawyer with expertise in criminal appeals, but probably an HN discussion isn't worth interrupting them for.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Some, but my exposure to the sentencing guidelines is mostly from seeing a lot of sentencing appeals as a judge's law clerk.

rayiner 10y ago

> Judges often complain about sentencing requirements in the law The laws, e.g. the U.S. sentencing guidelines, give you a pretty wide range for any given scenario. > I'm pretty sure judges look carefully at other sentences for similar crimes and criminals (precedent) Not really, at least not formally. Within the guideline range, it's mostly about extenuating or aggravating circumstances unique to the case, not a comparison with other similar cases. > and I know many courts use formulas that consider past convictions and other factors in determining a sentence. The sentencing guidelines do use formulas (add X points for prior criminal history, add Y points for amount of money stolen). That doesn't mean they're not totally ad-hoc and unscientific. Here are the federal sentencing guidelines for larceny, theft, etc: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archive/2011-2b11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archiv.... E.g. if the amount lost was between $200,000 and $400,000, you add 12 points to the score. If it involved more than 250 victims, you add 6 points. There is no science or rigor here. Just the drafters of the guidelines picking round numbers of dollars for one column and increasing the other column two levels at a time. What purpose does it serve to sentence someone differently based on whether they stole $350,000 or $450,000? And what impact does the difference in sentences have on things we care about: deterrence, recidivism, etc? It doesn't: It's quackery. It adopts the pretense of science without being in any way scientific.

hackuser 10y ago
Pardon my asking: Your profile says you are an appellate lawyer; do you handle criminal law? I'm not an attorney so I don't have much more to say. I do happen to know a lawyer with expertise in criminal appeals, but probably an HN discussion isn't worth interrupting them for.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Some, but my exposure to the sentencing guidelines is mostly from seeing a lot of sentencing appeals as a judge's law clerk.