Should Judges Make Discretionary Decisions

Judges have to make many discretionary decisions while they are on the bench. This is due to the fact that the law, no matter how well it is written, cannot anticipate every circumstance and eventuality that may be subject to that law. As a result, Judges are charged with making rational decisions in regards to the cases that don’t adequately fit the ramifications of the law. Most of the decisions that are made by Judges are independent of official guidelines and vary from Judge to Judge. This is due to the fact that when someone is charged with making a rational choice there are three tiers that have to be met: the decision maker must have a certain goal that they want to obtain from the decision, they must have alternative options other than the decision that they make and lastly they must have
Firstly, Judges have sole discretion in finding a defendant guilty or not guilty. They also maintain the discretion other what charges are able to stick to the defendant at the preliminary hearing level. There has been cases where the Judge felt that certain charges weren’t applicable to a certain defendant and the Judge dismissed the charges. Though the prosecution is able to object to the decision that the Judge made, the Judge’s ruling still stands. Along with this, Judges have full discretion over a defendant’s sentence except for those cases where there are established mandatory minimums. Some cases that have mandatory minimums are drug cases, rape cases and gun cases. Other than mandatory minimum cases, Judges exercise the right to impose sentencing based on the defendant’s prior criminal history, the likelihood of the defendant to benefit from diversionary programs and the recommendation of the prosecution and defense attorneys. There has been cases where the prosecution disagreed with a sentence that the Judge gave but he felt that he made the right decision for the defendant and the