Sentences with phrase «mandatory sentencing there»

Not exact matches

To tackle knife crime there must be a mandatory sentence not just for over-18s, but for anyone who brandishes a knife as a threat.

«Softer» drugs like marijuana are allowed for medicinal use, and possession for non-licensed individuals may result in a misdemeanor rather than a felony, but even for marijuana there's a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline.

If there is a mandatory minimum sentence for any offence, it means a judge has less discretion on how you should be sentenced.

There are certain situations in which a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon will require a mandatory minimum sentence.

A new report from Statistics Canada shows that, since the introduction of mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) in 2005, there has been a small increase in the proportion of summary cases of certain violent crimes resulting in a guilty finding but a significant increase in custody sentences, and that cases can take longer to work their way through the courts.

If we agree (and I think we do) that mandatory minimum sentences should be used sparingly, there are nevertheless two issues which deserve further exploration, in light of the desire to ensure that «fully - informed Judges to mete out fair sentences on a case - by - case basis»:

«At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence that mandatory minimum sentences wreak terrible damage on individuals (particularly those who are dependent on drugs), families and communities, -LSB-...]

Many of those with pending applications for clemency were convicted long ago of garden - variety crimes and have fully served their time; many others are still serving lengthy mandatory prison terms from which there is no hope of parole (parole having been eliminated from federal sentencing).

The Court properly and succinctly recognized that unless sentencing judges are allowed to define their alternative scorings categorically and honestly, there are only two possible outcomes: Either the guidelines are essentially mandatory, or judges lie about their reasoning, which is «institutional subterfuge.»

In the federal court system there are statutory sentencing guidelines that establish minimum and mandatory penalties.

I suspect there is a big internal stuggle there between those who want the return of mandatory sentencing guidelines and those who don't.

«The Court of Appeal said that that was a perfectly appropriate type of sentence and that there was no reason to go below that mandatory minimum, nor could they think of a scenario where it could be warranted,» says Brown.

And there is no better example of the Conservatives» disdain for evidence - based criminal justice policy than mandatory minimum sentences.

There is absolutely nothing in Rita that compels a sentencing judge who wants to treat the Guidelines as mandatory to really consider the 3553 (a) factors, so long as he gives some kind of lip service to «having listened to the arguments» (which is what I read Rita as basically requiring, if that much, in terms of a judicial statement).

HB 3381 is the more limited of the two and focuses exclusively on cases where there are mandatory minimum sentences under ORS 137.700 (Offenses requiring imposition of mandatory minimum sentences) and or 137.707 (Adult prosecution of 15 -, 16 - or 17 - year - old offenders; mandatory minimum sentences)

It is likely it will be plead down from a C felony (with the mandatory 3 1/2) to a D felony, for which there is the possibility of an «alternate definite sentence» of no prison time.

Offences under s. 236 are ineligible for a conditional sentence order under s. 742.1 (b) and (c), as there are mandatory minimum periods of incarceration and, when prosecuted by indictment, the maximum penalty is 14 years or life.

When the Crown proceeds on such a charge by indictment, there is a three year mandatory minimum sentence.

There was a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for that offence.

The decision to charge the crime as a «summary offense» (basically a misdemeanor) or an «indictable offense» (basically a felony) appears to be up to the prosecutor and there is no mandatory minimum sentence.

Crime rates in Canada are as low as they have ever been, and yet there is a great deal of daily talk about «punishing the criminals» with mandatory sentences.

I had thought there was a reasonable possibility that the Supreme Court sometime this week might hand down one of the big sentencing cases still pending: Southern Union (Apprendi's application to fines); Jackson and Miller (mandatory LWOP for young juve murderers); Dorsey and Hill (the FSA's application to pipeline cases).

It argues that, given the rationales underlying each of these rights, there is equal reason to apply these rights in discretionary sentencing systems as in mandatory ones.

While comprehensive reforms to lower federal mandatory minimum sentences remain aspirational, there are other policies on which the right and left agree that could have as much, if not more, impact in reducing the nation's incarcerated population while maintaining public safety.

A first - time violation of Alabama DUI laws can mean jail time of up to a year, but there is no mandatory minimum sentence.

There are, however, at least two conspicuous exceptions to this general position - namely the mandatory sentencing provisions operating in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

[156] Accordingly, there is no capacity for an individual to lodge a complaint about mandatory sentencing laws under the RDA.

The Commonwealth Attorney - General, my ministerial colleague, has written to his counterparts in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory, asking them to review their laws, particularly as they impact upon young people... The Commonwealth is very conscious of looking for other ways through this issue, and we are seeking, from a committee of members of parliament, advice on further diversionary programs, and looking at the interpreter issue to see whether there are ways forward, progressively, to address these questions, which can help in alleviating some of the concerns about the mandatory sentencing question... [116]

There remains, however, the possibility of challenging the constitutionality of mandatory sentencing legislation under section 10 of the RDA.

There is also no evidence that «mandatory sentencing is likely to produce an outcome where indigenous people... would be less represented in the statistics».

There have been no complaints lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that allege that mandatory sentencing laws are racially discriminatory.

Now I think the impact can be quite variable, because convictions are required, I'd suspect that it's probably, in many cases, going to be more difficult for convictions to occur, because I think it's a natural reaction that those who are involved in the proceedings work harder to make sure that if a mandatory sentence is likely, that it is resisted, if there is any possible doubt.

There is no evidence to support the claim that it will be more difficult to get a conviction under mandatory sentencing because of the standard of proof required.

And I also wonder, I understand that there has been a legal committee of the government that has studied and concluded that quote, «that the weight of the evidence of the committee was that the mandatory sentencing laws have a discriminatory impact on indigenous peoples and that is contrary to the provisions of CERD», and they named Articles 2 and 5 particularly.

Either these are palliatives which indicate that there is a recognition that mandatory sentencing is unfair in itself in which case my point is proved, or alternatively, there is no particular reason to spend $ A5 million per year in the Northern Territories and Western Australia to provide these diversionary programs which are not available or are not funded in other parts of the Australian Territory.

Note the comments of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee in their report on the Human Rights (Mandatory sentencing of juvenile offenders) Bill 1999 that «the weight of evidence to the Committee was that the mandatory sentencing laws have a discriminatory impact on Indigenous people that is contrary to the provisions of CERD, in particular articles 2 and 5» and that «there is no denying the fact that a series of «disadvantage» factors make indigenous people in particular likely to be affected by mandatory seMandatory sentencing of juvenile offenders) Bill 1999 that «the weight of evidence to the Committee was that the mandatory sentencing laws have a discriminatory impact on Indigenous people that is contrary to the provisions of CERD, in particular articles 2 and 5» and that «there is no denying the fact that a series of «disadvantage» factors make indigenous people in particular likely to be affected by mandatory semandatory sentencing laws have a discriminatory impact on Indigenous people that is contrary to the provisions of CERD, in particular articles 2 and 5» and that «there is no denying the fact that a series of «disadvantage» factors make indigenous people in particular likely to be affected by mandatory semandatory sentencing.

There is no logical connection between such a commitment and the existence of mandatory sentencing.