As much as we wish that the letter of the law was followed, I think, at least, exceptions have to be made. Thus enter judicial discretion in judges, as well as in jurors.
I recently watched a video in my law & rhetoric course where a mentally retarded man (who was previously convicted of a felony) broke probation by purchasing a handgun after seeing an advertisement in a magazine to become a detective. In this advertisement to become a detective, it stated that for one to become a detective he or she must own a gun. Following from this advertisement, the mentally retarded man, trying to make a living by becoming a detective, purchased a gun and registered the weapon; however, purchasing a gun, unbeknownst to the mentally retarded man, broke his probation. (Don’t ask me how a sporting goods store sold a gun to a mentally retarded man.)
Nonetheless, a few days after purchasing the gun, the mentally retarded man reported to his parole officer as required. During this meeting with the parole officer, the mentally retarded man showed the parole officer the detective advertisement, as well as the gun. Upon seeing this, the parole officer arrested the mentally retarded man and he was sent to court to be tried.
At the court hearing, the jury had a difficult decision to make: the mentally retarded man had technically broken his parole, however, did he really deserve the punishment for doing so (I believe if he was found guilty, he was sentenced to X number of years in prison)? Anyhow, after much deliberation, the jury found the man not guilty under the reasoning that while the man had broken the law, he did not do so intentionally, that is, he was not competent enough to realize that he had broken his parole (he thought he was trying to become a detective).
While the exact details of the case are somewhat askew in my memory, the point of the matter is that, yes, judicial discretion can—and should—be a good thing. While the letter of the law is important, following it 100 percent of the time can present problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what Keith is saying. Following the letter of the law 100% of the time would perhaps do more harm than good. In the case of the mentally retarded man, I believe the jury made the correct decision. Every crime has two parts, the act and the intent. In this case, there is no doubt that the act was made. However, the defendant did not have a guilty mind (intent). Therefore, without the intent present, no crime was committed.
ReplyDeleteI have seen the same video and a moment in it sticks out to me. The judge also informs the defense attorney that he would not inform the jury that they could rules against the law because he thought it could eventually lead to anarchy. I see where the judge was coming from but, I also believe that the case on the video was one of the times judicial discretion should have been use.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Keith and also with Dan on this subject it seems to me that if we were to follow the law all the time we would be moving away from the Due process revolution that we are in now and more toward a crime control society. If in fact we were in the crime control society, this mentally challenged man would be in jail for however many years no questions asked. I dont agree with this approach because it leads to the court of appeals being more overloaded than they are now, so yes judicial disecretion is a necessary part of our CJ system.
ReplyDelete