Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pgardn
Critics of the federal sentencing system have a long list of complaints. Sentences, they say, are too harsh.
1.Judges are allowed to take account of facts not proven to the jury.
2.The defendant’s positive contributions are ignored,
3.as is the collateral damage that imprisonment causes the families involved.
As Somer said: This is from a law and order guy. Liberal Defense Attorneys are licking their chops because of the reasoning he used. Again, you cant have it both ways.
Bush has set a precedent by using the above. This is what we expect from democratic liberals as other posters so aptly pointed out with slick william, etc...
This is really going to be funny when the 3 above are used by defense attorneys to ask judges to reduce the sentences of criminals charged with federal crimes.
|
Federal sentences
are too harsh, almost draconian. But the truth is that Bush's actions will have no effect on other criminal cases in the federal system because such sentences are the result of strict sentencing guidelines which take into account many factors in a very exacting manner. It would make not a bit of difference if a defense attorney pointed out the justifications spewed out by the White House in defense of the president's use of his pardon power. A federal judge in any other criminal case will still be limited and directed by the guidelines, from which there can be little deviation.
And by the way, not all defense attorneys are liberals. Plus, an attorney, whether liberal or conservative, is going to do all he can, and make every reasonable argument he can on the behalf of his client. An attorney can't disregard any potentially effective argument just because he disagrees with it philosophically. If he did, he wouldn't be doing his job, which is to zealously defend his client.