two questions..
1a) How much discretion should prosecutors, judges, and parole board members have in administering the criminal sanction?
b) What justifies the latitude given these individuals?
I think they should be able to use a lot of discretion. No two people are alike; one size does not fit all.
What do you think?
I feel their personal feelings need to be set aside when dealing with criminals. But the second part of the question I am confused on
Why do you think that judges, prosecutors and parole board members can use their judgment?
Have you seen the play or read the book, Les Miserables? Jean Valjean is persecuted for stealing a loaf of bread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables
To answer these questions, we need to understand the concept of discretion in the criminal justice system and the justifications behind it.
1a) Discretion refers to the authority or power given to prosecutors, judges, and parole board members to make decisions within the boundaries of legal guidelines. These decisions involve various aspects of administering criminal sanctions, such as charging a defendant, determining sentences, and granting parole.
The level of discretion these individuals should have is a topic of debate and may vary across different legal systems and jurisdictions. Generally, the amount of discretion given depends on factors like the severity of the offense, the nature of the case, and the overall goals of the criminal justice system.
b) Several justifications exist for granting discretion to prosecutors, judges, and parole board members:
1. Case-Specific Considerations: In complex criminal cases, each situation may be unique, requiring individualized decisions. Discretion allows these decision-makers to consider specific circumstances, such as the defendant's personal history, mental state, or the victim's perspective. This flexibility enables a more nuanced and just approach to the case.
2. Human Judgment: Discretion recognizes the value of human judgment in the legal process, allowing decision-makers to apply their expertise and experience to ensure fairness and justice. It acknowledges that strict adherence to rigid guidelines may not always be suitable, especially when dealing with complex and sensitive issues.
3. Efficiency and Resource Management: Granting some discretion reduces the burden on the legal system by enabling prosecutors, judges, and parole boards to allocate resources effectively. They can focus on the most serious cases, reach quicker resolutions, and streamline the justice process, especially when dealing with limited resources.
4. Adaptability to Changing Laws and Policies: Discretion allows for adaptation to evolving legal standards and societal changes. As laws and policies are modified, decision-makers have the flexibility to interpret and apply them appropriately. This helps maintain a system that reflects the current needs and values of society.
5. Balancing Interests: Since criminal cases often involve conflicting interests (e.g., punishment, rehabilitation, community safety), discretion enables a delicate balance in decision-making. It allows consideration of multiple factors and aims to achieve a fair and proportionate outcome that aligns with the broader goals of the criminal justice system.
It is important to note that while discretion can be beneficial, there is also a need for accountability and transparency to ensure it is not abused. Legal systems strive to strike a balance between granting discretion and having appropriate checks and balances to prevent arbitrary or unfair actions.
Ultimately, the amount of discretion given to prosecutors, judges, and parole board members is a matter of ongoing discussion, influenced by legal principles, societal values, and the goals of the criminal justice system.