4 ms·
That's a defensible position, but you then have to accept something like mandatory sentences, which introduce their own set of issues.
by logicchop 6y ago
That's a defensible position, but you then have to accept something like mandatory sentences, which introduce their own set of issues.
- FpUser 6y agoNope. Just prohibit jailing people for being too poor to paying tickets and similar "crimes". This definitely does not require mandatory sentences which is an evil on its own.
- logicchop 6y agoYour "Just prohibit.. " line sounds like a mandatory sentence to me; just in this case a mandatory sentence of "none." What would be left to the judge's discretion exactly?
- FpUser 6y ago"sounds like a mandatory sentence to me" - it is not sentence. It is a correction of gross injustice (actually crime in my eyes). "What would be left to the judge's discretion exactly" - f..n work within the limits of laws and regulations. The existing framework gives judges plenty of discretion as it is. And the last thing. Sounds like you do not mind people being jailed for the sake of the judges having discretion? I guess you would not mind then going away for a couple of years for spitting on a sidewalk or something similar.
- pjc50 6y agoMost jurisdictions do indeed have maximum sentence tarriffs for crimes, yes. UK example: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/drive-whilst-disqualified-revised-2017/ https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-co... i.e. someone who has been banned from driving due to previous offences but who is caught driving may be sentenced to a maximum of 6 months in prison.