Sentences with phrase «discretion at sentencing»

They have a motive to trash anything that suggests that judicial discretion at sentencing is a bad thing.

Particularly interesting is how his dissent highlights and explores one of the great puzzles emerging from this line of cases: When, and why, does the exercise of judicial discretion at sentencing violate the Sixth Amendment?

The legislation, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, improves judicial discretion at sentencing for low level offenders and helps inmates successfully reenter society, while tightening penalties for violent criminals and preserving key prosecutorial tools for law enforcement.

Similarly, the Court's decision in Kimbrough v. U.S., also gives the lower courts additional discretion at sentencing.

Not exact matches

It is not inconsistent — in fact, it is wholly reasonable — to say that some people (people guilty of multiple child murders for example) absolutely «deserve to die,» but at the same time to say that the state shouldn't be trusted with the discretion to hand out that sentence.

The sentence for a culpable homicide conviction is at the judge's discretion, although it can range from a suspended sentence and a fine to up to 15 years in prison.

Not all Indigenous offenders benefit from alternative sentencing decisions based on Gladue rights, as their application is at the discretion of the judge.

It's at the minimum level where that same crown discretion could force a reluctant Judge to start the sentencing regime at 4 yrs even for a first offender, that we need to be more vigilant.

that it would be unreasonable for a district court to exercise its discretion to adjust a sentence based, at least in part, on a concern about fast - track disparity.

• remove all discretion from the secretary of state in relation to deportation orders; • create an assumption that deportation is conducive to the public good; • require the secretary of state to make a deportation order (this can be made at any time providing there is no pending criminal appeal against a conviction or sentence); and • prohibit the secretary of state from revoking a deportation order unless: (i) one of the exceptions below applies; (ii) an application for revocation is made while individuals are outside the UK; or (iii) a new Borders Act deportation order is made.

MYSTERY # 1 Answer: Isn't the presumption - on - appeal just another way of saying that abuse of discretion review applies — per Stevens — and that sentencing within the guidelines is presumptively a reasoned exercise of discretion, given all the reasoning behind the guidelines, at least where all the proper procedural steps were taken by the district court at sentencing?

In all cases of criminal contempt arising under the provisions of this act, the accused, upon conviction, shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both; Provided however, that in case the accused is a natural person the fine to be paid shall not exceed the sum of $ 1,000, nor shall impriSonment exceed the term of six months; Provided further, That in any such proceeding for criminal contempt, at the discretion of the judge, the accused may be tried with or without a jury; Provided further, however, That in the event such proceeding for criminal contempt be tried before a judge without a jury and the sentence of the court on conviction is a fine in excess of the sum of $ 300 or imprisonment in excess of forty five days, the accused in said proceeding upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to a trial de novo before a jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in other criminal cases.

Nothing in the safety valve prevents judges from sentencing prisoners at or above the mandatory minimum even if they are eligible for the safety valve, but simply allows judicial discretion to ensure that prison resources are being used where they can best protect public safety, and not wasted on nonviolent, low - level drug offenders.

First, recent Tory amendments whittling away at judicial discretion in sentencing by increasing the number of offences subject to mandatory minimum penalties will only create new and more tragic examples of cases where a manifestly unjust sentence is required by statute.

Also, the granting is a Discharge is at the discretion of the sentencing Judge and is subject to the factors identified in the «Factors Considered» section.

But, even if someone was technically guilty of «escape» the circumstances would no doubt influence how prosecutorial discretion was exercised and would likely result in a shorter sentence for escape to the extent that there was a conviction for that offense and the judge had discretion to impose a mild sentence or a sentence concurrent with out sentences that the inmate is serving at the time.

Penalties for bid rigging include a fine at the discretion of the court and / or a prison sentence of up to five years.

That opening sentence should prompt MFTs to ask themselves whether the client is consenting to the release of information or whether there is an applicable law that would either mandate release or allow the provider to release information at the provider's discretion.

The kind of circumstances recognised by the authorities which might justify the exercise of this discretion was discussed in R v Morton (2001) 11 NTLR 97 at [11]- [12], viz, a failure by the prosecutor to assist the sentencing judge or a failure by the Crown to lodge a prompt appeal.