Judicial discretion can be viewed as the cornerstone to our judicial system. Discretion is used in every step of the criminal trial process. The use of discretion varies by each step of the judicial process. Police officers use discretion when deciding if they should give a motorist a ticket or arrest a pedestrian for public drunkenness. Prosecutors use discretion when choosing whether or not to bring a case to trial. A prosecutor may also use discretion when plea bargaining cases. Judges use discretion in sentencing and can take all sorts of things into account including prior record, demeanor, and other aggravating/mitigating factors. Discretion is necessary for our court system to run smoothly. Plea bargaining is an essential tool used by prosecutors to keep the flow of cases moving throughout the court system. Judges must also use discretion because not all crimes and criminals are equal nor do they deserve the same punishment. For example, it is common for judges to give a lighter sentence to a criminal who has pled guilty rather than the criminal who pled innocent and was found guilty. The reason being is that it is often believed that admitting guilt is the first step to rehabilitation. As beneficial as discretion may be, its power may be abused and used as a means to enact prejudice.
Discretion is a double-edged sword. Discretion may allow a police officer to give you a warning instead of a speeding ticket. However, discretion may also allow police to use immoral tactics such as racial profiling.
Although I believe that discretion plays an essential role in our judicial system, I do believe that its use should be closely monitored in order to guard against injustice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like your idea about discretion being a double edged sword and I completely agree that while it may be necessary, it can definitely lead to severe problems if it not examined closely.
ReplyDeleteGood point Dan. I agree we do need to make sure that discretion in monitored closely. If we let cops take their discretion to limit, we ultimately have failed in our legal system. We also can see that discretion can be a good thing too. Judges can use their discretion, to be more lenient, with people who have other circumstances that are outside of the legal realms.
ReplyDeleteDiscretion is absolutely a double edged sword. I think this post really does well to highlight the good points of our legal system. Discretion on the part of officers, judges, and juries is the cornerstone of our legal system. The foundation underneath that cornerstone, however, is PEOPLE. Discretion makes our legal system work; the ethical values of the people within makes our legal system great.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your idea of judicial discretion being a double-edged sword. Discretion is an essential element to our legislative system, yet at times, this power can be abused. For instance, according to the Constitution Society, "in courts that try to save time and money by not using juries, such as family courts in some states, complaints about abuse of judicial discretion have led to calls for juries to decide questions of custody, visitation, child support, and the distribution of marital property." In addition, in judges who impose lenient sentencing to prevent the "early release of violent offenders often provoke demands for mandatory minimum sentences or sentencing guidelines that reduce their discretion to do things like impose reduced sentences on defendants thought to be remorseful or unlikely to commit another offense." Therefore, the use of discretion is vital to the legislative system yet there are aspects that lead to conflict.
ReplyDelete