Preview

Judicial Discretion

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
373 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Judicial Discretion
Judicial Discretion
Judicial discretion refers to the authority that judges have for making and interpreting certain laws. Within the United States, judicial discretion is one of the fundamental tenants of the system of law, and is guaranteed in the United States Constitution. Both state and federal judges can exercise judicial discretion, although their discretion is not unlimited.
This study focuses on a series of legal, extralegal, and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice systems. These variables are employed first to analyze the decision of the court to refer defendants for presentence investigation when such a referral is not mandatory, then to examine how these referrals, once made, influence disposition. The relationship of legal representation to disposition is also explored. The findings contradict conventional wisdom regarding the advantages to defendants of legal representation and of presentence reports. Lawyers do not appear to influence either referral or sentencing. The presentence reports are requested by judges seeking to individualize their sentencing decisions, but this process of individualization is as likely to result in harsher sentences as in greater leniency.

Judicial discretion plays a major role in today’s society as far as the sentencing process. Without judicial discretion the court system would not be together as well as it is today. The essence of monocracy, the rule of law, is limitation of the discretion of officials, and providing a process by which errors or abuse of discretion can be corrected. Some discretion is unavoidable, because law cannot anticipate every eventuality or how to decide which law may apply to a given situation. What guidance the law cannot provide is supposed to be provided by standard principles of justice and due process, reason, and the facts of each case. Ideally, officials should be mutually consistent and interchangeable, making similar decisions in similar cases,



References: http://www.wisegeek.com http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary http://www.constitution.org/abus/discretion/judicial

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    The American Criminal Justice System is a well orchestrated and cooperative performance with the professional courtroom actors and others all playing their parts in the administration of justice. This paper will look at a very important group of individuals the courtroom work group. Each person acts as one of the cogs in the machine, all cooperating to reach a common goal. This paper will describe what a courtroom work group is, who is in a courtroom work group and what they each do. The role of the prosecutor will also be described and how they determine which cases to pursue, and what would happen if the criteria for the prosecution of cases were more lenient or stringent. Lastly, this paper will describe the effects of the criminal justice funnel and the backlog of cases on the American court systems and the courtroom work group. Are there any solutions to help eliminate the funnel and help reduce the backlog of cases? To get an answer to that question, a review of the how this important group works will have to be understood.…

    • 1388 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Narrowing the judges’ focus to only punishment and retribution would not serve the initial purpose of having a justice system at all. Certain members of the public may believe the opposite. These individuals believe that judges in our court system are too lenient on sentencing the accused. However, how knowledgeable are these individuals in the Australian justice system? In contrast to the expertise judges and Australian judicial workers have learnt through years of experience, must the public’s contradicting, non-expertise opinion determine the outcome of individuals accused of crime? Certainly, the law must take into account the values and expectations of the community. However, it is fundamental to our system of justice that there is the right of an offender to a fair trial must exist – this is protected in our current sentencing system. Under Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), a court should consider a number of objectives to determine the appropriate sentence; punishment, deterrence, denouncement, rehabilitation and protection. Sentencing legislation also specifies matters that courts must take into account when passing sentence, such as mitigating factors and the offender’s personal circumstances.…

    • 697 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This is one of the major effects of mandatory minimum sentencing in that it limits judicial discretion of the most serious crimes in the criminal justice system. What is problematic in this instance is that without variation the role of judges, their highly respected reasoning in balancing competing values, and understanding of the law is compromised because of these restrictions in sentencing. Has this discretion completely vanished? Athar Malik explains that as a result, “what little discretion remains in the hands of the judge, now gives the Crown an inordinate amount of power.” Mandatory minimum sentencing may also increase the pressure to plead guilty, whereby the discretion wielded by the Crown is “hidden from public view” which in turn may reduce accountability and allow systemic discrimination to be perpetuated. Hence, mandatory minimums distort the role of the prosecutor, turning him from an advocate into a quasi-judge and this is neither desirable nor appropriate in our judicial system. This is problematic as this limits taking into account varying aggravating and mitigating factors unique to each case. Consequently, with the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing, judges have become accustomed to imposing prison terms as the norm and with the passage of time there will be fewer judges who will adopt a…

    • 1521 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    In this paper the topics that will be discussed will be what are the state and federal objectives of punishment? How does sentencing affect the state and federal corrections systems overall? With support for that answer, what is the determinate and indeterminate sentencing? As well as which sentencing model that is felt the most appropriate? With an explanation as to why and examples will be provided.…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    In addition, the principles of sentencing established by common law and legislation must be applied in each case including the principle that imprisonment is only enforced when no other punishment is appropriate, the punishment must fit the crime and similar crimes should receive similar sentences. Introducing mandatory consistent sentencing standards would conflict with the judge’s ability to oversee specific circumstances of a case and to enforce a just…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Judicial branch is one of the three branches of the federal government. This branch includes criminal and civil courts and helps interpret the United States constitution. At the constitutional convention of 1787 the birth of the judicial system was born and soon after became adopted to the future of the federal government judicial system. Because of this, the convention it went down in political history and showed the United States how organized and prepared the government was when it came to the court system. But despite the fact that the government was prepared there is a slight controversy that the Judicial branch happens to be the most powerful branch out of the three. What is your belief on the ability and capability of the judicial…

    • 930 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Judicial Branch is the most important branch of the United States government, due to the significant role it plays in interpreting and determining if laws are constitutional. Even though the Judicial Branch is the smallest in size and has smallest budget of any branch in our nation’s government, it exercises enormous power and is equal to other branches of the government because it has the power of Judicial Review. Judicial Review is the review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act.…

    • 1614 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Discretion In Cjs

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Discretion plays an indispensable role in the criminal justice system (CJS). Discretion is the judgment or decision implemented through values, facts, and principles. In the CJS, it is the authority given to a decision maker to decide between alternatives or no alternatives. Discretion can be used by police in the area of the criminal investigation process. Its role is continuous from sentencing judgments to the point of detaining offenders in prison past their sentencing period. Discretion also allows individuals’ circumstances to be considered, as the law at times can be considered a blunt measurement in delivering an alternative. This demonstrates that discretion plays an important role in the CJS to enforce the law, whilst taking into account the rights of individuals.…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Discretion within the criminal trial process is a very important matter, as the judge or magistrate must exercise appropriate measures in order to reach a just verdict. For example the evidence presented in trial must be approved by the Judge or Magistrate in case the evidence used in court appears inadmissible or prejudicial. The Evidence Act 1995 applies court discretion within the trial process as it allows for the quality of fairness. Without the exercise of impartiality within the trial process the decision made by the jury may alter the final…

    • 453 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial restraint is when the courts are reluctant to overturn judicial precedents, or when the judges believe the law is clearly unconstitutional, meaning there is little room for them to argue that it is constitutional or strictly based on what the law states. The reason for the debate between which should be used more frequently is obvious, because they are opposites. One says to bend the law to what time it’s being looked at in and the other wants the law to be used word for word or have little room to be debated what it says. However, with different forms of media the views between the two get twisted. They usually show judicial activism as being the justice choosing what would benefit them most or based on their political views.…

    • 951 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Definition of judicial restraint, mention Marbury V Madison (1803). Set out argument strict constructionists argue that the SC should stick to the original intentions of the FF whilst loose constructionists argue that the SC must reinterpret the Constitution in order to move with the times and bring it up-to-date. Judicial restraint has an impact on many members of US society that are not protected under the original Constitution. Main- All decisions whether restrained or activist have huge political significance. E.g. abortion, Rights of African Americans, etc. If restrained, the court can turn away cases and choose not to even hear them. The SC can pick and choose (they only choose between 90-100 cases to hear a year). Liberals argue…

    • 527 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    I believe that the judicial restraint philosophy is more appropriate for federal judges to follow because, unlike judicial activism, it does not allow judges to expand vague Constitutional principles to fit their own viewpoint and principles. Judicial restraint does not authorize judges to interpret Constitutional texts and laws (conservative or liberal interpretation) in order to serve their own principles, policies, and considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society. The judicial restraint policy also ensures that separation of powers is applied justly so that different branches of government do not intervene with the power of the other branch. Also, because the Stare Decisis has a huge impact on future decisions and precedent,…

    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Jury Nullification

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Symposium article by Clay S. Conrad and Nancy King supported the argument that juries can and should correct the overly broad use of criminal sanctions. While a court may try to pretend that injustices under the law cannot occur, they often do. It is not justice if a jury does not believe in the decision they have rendered just because they followed the letter of the law. They should be satisfied with the verdict they have proclaimed and know that any punishments are warranted since another human beings life and well-being if often at stake.…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    I like to view the relationship between judicial restraint, judicial activism, and strict constructionism as a parallel to our current top 3 most popular political affiliations.…

    • 231 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Discretionary Power

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Discretion implies power to make a choice between alternative courses of action. The need of discretion arises because of the necessity and expediency to individualise the exercise of power by the administration i.e., the administration has to apply a vague or indefinite provision from case to case. The sphere of judicial discretion includes all questions, as to what is right, just, equitable, or reasonable so far as not determined by authoritative rules of law but committed to the liberum arbitrium of the donees…

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics