Sentences with phrase «discretion in sentencing»

But when the court did just that on Oct. 14, it drew wide criticism for missing an opportunity to resolve a long - running dispute over judicial discretion in sentencing.

This has manifested itself not only with a raft of prescriptive criminal legislation on practice and procedure but also successive home secretaries» efforts to curtail and straitjacket judicial discretion in sentencing.

It removes discretion from the Courts to use judicial discretion in sentencing.

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.

[UNPUBLISHED][Per Curiam - Before Bye, Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges]: On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration under Gall v. U.S.. Under the more deferential abuse - of - discretion review outlined in Gall, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 132 months, and the sentence is affirmed.

Given these considerations, we can not say the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Austad.

The bill gives judges additional discretion in sentencing defendants with minimal non-violent criminal histories that may trigger mandatory minimum sentences under current law.

For far too long, judicial discretion in sentencing has been eroded, the unfortunate result of well - intentioned conservatives over many years.

The judges should really be thinking twice about there discretion in sentencing.

The Supreme Court has said previously that the object of mandatory minimum sentences is the removal of judicial discretion in the sentencing process.

These include legislation, prosecutorial charging guidelines, court challenges, jury nullification, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the absence of offence - specific charging guidelines, and the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing.

This paper claims that a process - based conception of proportionality offers a stronger defence of judicial discretion in sentencing than the current framework offers; it better respects institutional roles and provides a more principled basis for declaring the current structure of mandatory minimum penalties unconstitutional.

«In a series of drug cases, U.S. District Judge William Young said the sentencing guidelines put too much power in the hands of prosecutors and give judges too little discretion in sentencing.»

As the federal government moves to limit judicial discretion in the sentencing of violent crimes, a recent decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal has reasserted the court's authority, ruling that jurors in murder trials need not be unanimous in their sentencing recommendation to the court.

Let us give the judiciary complete discretion in sentencing with a very strong and strictly enforced policy that lenient sentencing will be overturned on appeal.

Taking discretion in sentencing out of the hands of judges.

Judge Sharpe has a very wide discretion in sentencing.

Most obvious is the discretion in sentencing where if a crime has a State penalty of 10 to 15 years and it's up to the judge or jury as to the actual sentence handed down then the intent of the crime is often debated and used in the decision.

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.

While serving in the State Senate, Martins helped craft the legislation, signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in 2011, that provides judges with discretion during sentencing to strip the pensions of officials convicted of corruption.

The judge added that he himself reviewed Diane Piagentini's victim impact statement and Bell's sentencing remarks — and still found that the parole board had been within its discretion in voting to free Bell.

Equally dramatic was action Paterson took in overhauling the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws that for 35 years had deprived judges of sentencing discretion and doomed tens of thousands of low - level drug offenders to long prison sentences.

The unexpurgated sentence reads: «Ultimately, a permitting authority retains the discretion to conduct a broader BACT analysis and to consider changes in the primary fuel in Step 1 of the analysis» (emphasis added).

By contrast, the view of the Advocate General (AG) appears much more in line with the traditional philosophy of mutual trust in the EU context: even if Member States have discretion about the means to execute the sentences delivered by their courts and even if EU law does not oblige a Member State to issue an EAW in order to prevent impunity, Advocate General Jääskinen recalls that «the principle that every penalty must be executed forms part of the rule of law» whose respect is a common feature to all the Member States of the Union (§ 102, referring to the opinion of the AG).

However, it does add an interesting twist to the ongoing debate around judicial discretion in violent crime sentencing, given the federal government's tough - on - crime agenda.

That the appellate court would have done things differently or reached a different result, however, does not mean that the lower court abused its discretion or, in post-Booker parlance, issued an unreasonable sentence.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was remote.

The Court also rejected the trial Judge's finding that the law was sound because the mandatory minimum sentence only applied where the Crown elected to proceed by indictment and that the «reasonable exercise of Crown discretion would result in summary proceedings».

'' [t] he judge will... be forced to decide in advance of trial — and without hearing the evidence — whether he will forgo entirely his judicial discretion to impose some sentence of imprisonment and abandon his responsibility to consider the full range of punishments established by the legislature.

In a decision important to high - dollar white - collar prosecutions, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals bolstered the broad discretion of trial judges to issue sentences far below, or far above, sentencing guidelines.

Based upon complaints filed by, among others, Washington DC based Judicial Watch, the Commission had sought to remove Judge Kendall from the bench on the basis of criticisms of his bail and sentencing decisions in specific cases, none of which had ever been appealed and each of which was soundly within his legal discretion.

The National Law Journal noticed the Second Circuit's important (though unpublished) sentencing work earlier this week as reported in this article, headlined «In Upholding Impath Exec's Sentence, 2nd Circuit Bolsters Discretion of Trial Judges.&raquin this article, headlined «In Upholding Impath Exec's Sentence, 2nd Circuit Bolsters Discretion of Trial Judges.&raquIn Upholding Impath Exec's Sentence, 2nd Circuit Bolsters Discretion of Trial Judges.»

«A judicially imposed starting point in this jurisdiction constrains the «wide latitude» and «broad discretion» accorded to sentencing judges by the Supreme Court of Canada, stifles that sentencing discretion and results in a chilling effect on the ability of sentencing judges to craft individualized dispositions.»

[2] For this purpose, the courts have developed tools over the years to ensure that similar sentences are imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances — the principle of parity of sentences — and that sentences are proportionate by guiding the exercise of that discretion, and to prevent any substantial and marked disparities in the sentences imposed on offenders for similar crimes committed in similar circumstances.

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

In the alternative, Parliament could provide for judicial discretion to allow for a lesser sentence where the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment,» said the majority.

718 et seq. of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C ‑ 46, and although the objectives set out in those sections guide the courts and are clearly defined, it nonetheless involves, by definition, the exercise of a broad discretion by the courts in balancing all the relevant factors in order to meet the objectives being pursued in sentencing.

Bob: I think you raise an interesting point regarding «maximum sentences» as an equally dangerous fetter on the freedom of judicial discretion and yet I can't honestly think of a single example of a case in which a crown has said «I wish the maximum sentence was higher so I can seek out a «fair» sentence.»

It is even more tragic that offenders in this circuit will have to rely on prosecutorial discretion, not judicial discretion, in order to receive a just and fair sentence in these cases.

S.C. Code § 63-3-620 enumerates these sanctions as, «a fine, a public work sentence, or by imprisonment in a local correctional facility, or any combination of them, in the discretion of the court, but not to exceed imprisonment in a local correctional facility for one year, a fine of fifteen hundred dollars, or public work sentence of more than three hundred hours, or any combination of them.»

Attorneys with the Capital Area Immigrant Rights (Cair) Coalition, who met with more than 70 other launched detainees with lowered sentences, say he has one of the greatest cases for prosecutorial discretion as detailed in a 2014 memo by the head of the Department of Homeland Security.

Seems to me that the answer is easy in one sense: if the effects of a given crime are really worse in one area than in another, Gall discretion surely allows a sentencing judge to impose a different sentence as a result.

The Model Penal Code: Sentencing project provides guidance on some of the most important issues that courts, corrections systems, and policymakers are facing today, including the general purposes of the sentencing system; rules governing sentence severity — including sentences of incarceration, community supervision, and economic penalties; the elimination of mandatory minimum penalties; mechanisms for combating racial and ethnic disparities in punishment; instruments of prison population control; victims» rights in the sentencing process; the sentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentenSentencing project provides guidance on some of the most important issues that courts, corrections systems, and policymakers are facing today, including the general purposes of the sentencing system; rules governing sentence severity — including sentences of incarceration, community supervision, and economic penalties; the elimination of mandatory minimum penalties; mechanisms for combating racial and ethnic disparities in punishment; instruments of prison population control; victims» rights in the sentencing process; the sentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentensentencing system; rules governing sentence severity — including sentences of incarceration, community supervision, and economic penalties; the elimination of mandatory minimum penalties; mechanisms for combating racial and ethnic disparities in punishment; instruments of prison population control; victims» rights in the sentencing process; the sentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentensentencing process; the sentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentensentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentensentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentensentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentensentencing guidelines, and appellate sentence review.

«In the alternative, Parliament could provide for judicial discretion to allow for a lesser sentence where the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.»

When the Supreme Court rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines nonbinding in United States v. Booker, it established appellate review of federal sentences for reasonableness to cabin sentencing judges» newly acquired dSentencing Guidelines nonbinding in United States v. Booker, it established appellate review of federal sentences for reasonableness to cabin sentencing judges» newly acquired dsentencing judges» newly acquired discretion.

But for anyone and everyone working in state or federal systems worried about the exercise of unfettered sentencing discretion, this Alfonso - Roche decision is today's must - read.

But Berman also notes that the Supreme Court made sentencing guidelines voluntary in January 2005, leaving the judge discretion to give the same sentence.

I think Doug is referring to the prosecutor's significant discretion in such matters as: what crimes to charge, what plea bargains to propose or accept, and the punishments the sentencing court is urged to mete out.

In a criminal case where there is an extreme sentence, this is often the result of a judge applying sentencing discretion to reflect uncharged crimes.