Assignment task:
In your response to your peers, consider how well they justified their position, making use of available resources. Consider the following questions in your response posts: * Did they support their position convincingly using appropriate resources? * Which of their points make the most sense to you, even if you made your case for the opposing viewpoint? Respond as if you are replying to their post. Your view: Judicial Discretion Should Be Allowed Peer one same view as you Judicial discretion should be permitted in sentencing, in my opinion. "By employing the discretion of a judge to impose the appropriate sentence in the specific case before them, it allows that sentence to better achieve all of the goals of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation," according to How Judicial Discretion Impacts Sentencing in Criminal Cases (Wilbur, 2021). While judgment often results in criminal prosecutions, there are other challenging situations. Having discretion has its benefits and drawbacks, like any other weapon. One benefit of judicial discretion, for instance, is that it allows the application of the law and the consideration of the particular facts of each case. A drawback of abusing judicial discretion is that it can lead to gross injustice, damage the court's reputation and authority, and encourage decision-making that is result-oriented. I believe that in the absence of judicial discretion, individuals who belong to a minority or who identify as a different gender will not be treated equally and will instead face harsher sentences that are not appropriate for the crimes they have done Peer two different view than you Sentencing guidelines offer consistency and fairness, reducing disparities and increasing transparency in the judicial process. They're based on research, considering factors like offense severity and criminal history. However, strict adherence limits judicial discretion, potentially leading to unjust outcomes and contributing to mass incarceration. Finding the balance between discretion and guideline adherence is crucial for justice. While discretion allows tailored sentences, it can lead to inconsistency and bias. Guideline oversight ensures fairness and equity but may overlook case complexities. Research by the United States Sentencing Commission highlights both the benefits of guidelines in reducing disparity and concerns about their rigidity. Thus, a hybrid approach, blending discretion with guideline guidance, appears most just. It maintains consistency while allowing judges to consider individual circumstances, ensuring fair outcomes in the criminal justice system.