Check out the post on everyone's favorite federal blog by David Markus (the link is on the left of this page) where Mr. Markus highlights a speech by Justice Kennedy complaining about the length of federal sentences (unlike certain former circuit judges now on the third DCA, Justice Kennedy is complaining that sentences are too harsh, not too lenient).
We have spoken out about this before on the blog, and been met with a resounding “zzzzzzzzzzzz”.
It would be very helpful if some judges (who can remain anonymous) would write in about what they think about sentencing in general.
Are minimum mandatory sentences the legislature’s way of saying they do not trust Judges?
What criteria does a Judge believe is important when sentencing a defendant after a trial.
Do Judges really sentence a defendant more harshly as a way of sending a message and trying to hold down the number of people who request a trial?
Does sentencing someone to 30 years as a way of sending a message (when 10 or 15 years would do) weigh on the conscience of a Judge?
Are there Judges now on the bench who regret past sentences and would do things differently now with some more experience?
Do Judges believe that with experience and more time on the bench they have issued harsher sentences, more lenient sentences, or stayed about the same?
Are there any Judges in Dade who do not believe in the death penalty?
How would a Judge wish to be known: as imposing harsh sentences, lenient sentences, or fair sentences?
Would it bother a Judge to know that the Dade legal community believes they are lenient in their sentences?
Finally, any candidate for Judge who wants their views known on this subject is invited to write in and we will post your thoughts and views.
Food for thought.
Of course these issues matter very little to us and Mr. Markus, considering neither of us are in the habit of having clients sentenced.
See You In Court winning acquittals.