Objective Seriousness In Court Administrations

“Court administrators” are defined as judges and prosecutors. There are primary factors that are considered when court administrators in deciding to sentence. Objective Seriousness, Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances. Objective seriousness will be the first discussed Objective seriousness is straight forward it outlines how serious your situation outlines. Verbal assaulting an individual would fall on the lower spectrum while physically assaulting an individual would be higher. The court administrators will determine the objective seriousness by taking into account all the facts and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Aggravating and mitigating circumstances are key factors when deciding to sentence. Aggravating factors would merit a harsh sentence
In states that have a “three strikes” law, such as California, a relatively minor offense may result in a lengthy jail or prison term if the defendant has two or more prior convictions. The vulnerability of Victim: In some jurisdictions, the court may impose a harsher sentence if the victim is found to be vulnerable, either according to an objective standard or in relation to the defendant. Vulnerability based on age, such as a crime of violence against a child or a fraudulent scheme targeting the elderly, may be an aggravating factor. Other factors may include physical or mental disability, illness or injury, and incapacitation. Leadership Role: If the defendant played a prominent role in a criminal scheme, such as a leadership or managerial role, some jurisdictions allow courts to consider that as an aggravating factor. This is particularly true if the defendant influenced or controlled others involved in the offense. Hate Crimes: Some states have enacted laws that allow sentencing enhancements if the state proves that the defendant was motivated by bias or animus based on a group characteristic. Most hate crime statutes include categories like race, religion, and national origin. Some states