Americans have a lot of debt and a lot of people in prison. Florida is especially struggling with too many inmates and not enough space or money for them. The problem isn’t just because there’s more crime, but because of policies that lead to more people getting locked up. This article talks about a solution to both problems by changing the way we decide how long someone should be in prison. The authors argue that Florida’s prison population is growing because the legislature took away judges’ power to decide sentences. They believe that giving this power back to judges will help control the budget and keep the public safe. They think judges are experienced and accountable to the community, so they should be the ones making these decisions, not assistant state attorneys. Inexperienced prosecutors have a lot of power in deciding the sentences for criminals, often more than judges. They can choose what charges to file and what plea deals to offer. There are also salary differences between prosecutors and other government lawyers. This has led to concerns about fairness in the legal system.
The history of the legal system in the U.K. has influenced the American justice system. In the past, there were no prisons and criminals were either set free or executed. Sir Thomas More criticized this and suggested that criminals should serve as slaves instead of being executed. His ideas were gradually adopted and incarceration became a common form of punishment. This happened as people became against executions and convicts could no longer be sent to America. In 1983, Florida changed how judges could give out prison sentences. Before that, judges had a lot of power to decide on the punishment for a crime. But the new guidelines limited their power. Some judges didn’t follow the new rules, but the courts later said they had to. The rules changed a few more times until a new system was put in place in 1998. Now, judges have to follow specific rules when deciding on prison sentences. The current sentencing guidelines have a minimum sentence that judges must follow unless there are special reasons for a lower sentence. However, judges can give the maximum sentence allowed by law. It would be helpful to have a catch-all category for lower sentences, but it’s unlikely to happen. The current law does list some reasons for lower sentences, but it seems to suggest that there could be other reasons too. The law says that a judge can’t give a lighter sentence just because someone is addicted to drugs. But there are other reasons a judge can use to give a shorter sentence, like if someone is willing to go to a drug treatment program. The law is strict about not using addiction as the only reason for a shorter sentence, but there are ways to argue for treatment instead of prison. Just because someone commits a crime because of drug addiction doesn’t mean they should automatically go to prison. A judge should be able to consider probation and drug treatment as a better option. In prison, drugs are still available and it’s hard for people to change their behavior. But in supervised drug treatment, there’s a better chance of getting better. Sometimes, parents kick their kids out because of drug addiction, and then call the police when the kids break back in. But why should the court have to send someone to prison just because the prosecutor says so, if the person and their parent want drug treatment instead? The Supreme Court has said it’s not fair to punish someone just for being a drug addict, so Florida courts should be able to use a drug treatment departure as a reason to not send someone to prison. Nobody is saying drug addiction should be a reason to get out of trouble, but it shouldn’t be a reason to keep someone from getting the help they need. Currently, judges don’t have the power to give a lighter sentence to someone who takes responsibility and pleads guilty in court. This power is held by assistant state attorneys, who may not have as much experience as the judges. This can lead to unfair sentencing for people who made a mistake after staying out of trouble for a long time. Without the prosecutor’s discretion, serious cases can be delayed because the state won’t budge from the sentencing guidelines. Mandatory minimum sentences should be limited or abolished so that judges can use their common sense to make fair decisions. Right now, judges are forced to give certain sentences, even if they don’t make sense for the situation. This means some people get punished too much, while others don’t get the help they need. It’s not fair for anyone involved. Richard Paey, a law school graduate, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for drug trafficking, even though there was no evidence he was selling drugs. This happened because of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, which didn’t allow the judge to use his own judgement. Governor Charlie Crist pardoned Paey, but this kind of injustice could have been prevented if judges had more freedom to make their own decisions on sentences. Recently, there has been a shift in power from the court to the government, which goes against the Constitution. Judge Winifred Sharp believes this violates the principle of separation of powers. She thinks the power of sentencing should be given back to the judges. It’s important to save money, but we need to make sure the legal system is fair and effective. Public defenders and prosecutors are facing financial challenges, which is causing experienced professionals to leave their jobs. The courts are also dealing with budget cuts. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Professor Bowman and Judge Sharp are both concerned about how power is distributed in our sentencing system. They believe that if one branch of the government has too much power over sentencing, it can lead to problems. They argue that our system should have checks and balances, just like our government does, to make sure that no one branch has too much control. They also point out that our current approach to sentencing is not only expensive, but it’s also morally questionable. They believe that giving all the power to prosecutors, without involving judges, goes against the intentions of our founding fathers and could lead to serious problems. Judges should be upset because the legislature is taking away their power to make important decisions about sentencing criminals. This is a tradition in America that is being lost, and it’s not working out well. Florida needs more money for prisons, but the best solution is to give judges more power so they can balance out the other branches of government. This will help make fair decisions about criminal sentencing. The legal system has changed over time, with prosecutors now having a lot of power in sentencing. In the past, in Anglo-Saxon England, they used methods like compurgation and ordeal to determine guilt. In the past, people thought that keeping criminals as slaves was better for society than killing them. This all changed when Australia became the preferred place to send criminals. The Florida criminal sentencing system is similar to the federal system and follows specific guidelines and codes. Judges can sometimes reduce a sentence if the defendant completes drug rehabilitation. However, all burglars will still go to prison, no matter their criminal history. Additionally, it’s considered unconstitutional for a state to punish someone for being addicted to drugs.
The law in Florida allows prosecutors to make agreements with defendants for lower sentences, but federal prosecutors don’t have this power. In some cases, people have been charged with drug trafficking for having a small amount of drugs mixed with legal medicine. However, there have been some cases where sympathy has led to more lenient sentences. A law article was written by two authors, one a public defender and the other a judge in Florida. They argue that a new statute violates the division of power between the executive and judicial branches of government by taking away the judge’s discretion in sentencing. They believe the statute requires judges to impose a mandatory sentence once certain criteria are met. The article represents the views of the authors and not their employers.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/unhandcuffing-justice-proposals-to-return-rationality-to-criminal-sentencing/
Leave a Reply