Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
But I thought the whole "anti-individual-discretion" movement was predicated on the idea that such decisions had to be removed from the hands of individuals, and transferred to formulae. The whole sentencing guidelines concept arose there, based on the idea that we needed to get these decisions out of the hands of anyone who COULD make the decision on unacceptable grounds. How can we now allow prosecutors to do what we don't allow judges to do? (I'm not arguing that this isn't the case - I don't know anymore - just that, if it is, isn't this a step back to unequal justice?)
|
All of these pitfalls are true, but I assure you that the federal sentencing guidelines and the three-strikes movement have been written with an eye toward decreasing judicial power, but vastly increasing prosecutorial power. Why else are the judges complaining about prosecutors overcharging in order to get better leverage for plea deals?
I do not like the drawbacks of powerful prosecutors, but the drawbacks of a prosecutor who has no discretion --- or who believes em has no discretion --- strike me as far greater. Who wants to see an eleven year old sent up for aggravated destruction of property worth more than $500 for busting out a few double-paned windows? The examples of crimes that are overlooked by prosecutors in order to enhance the QOL of the involved parties are legion. Example on the downside would be uncharged domestic violence. Example on the upside would be not charging every single vehicular death as involuntary manslaughter.
