Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

[WildBill]

It looks I'm in the minority but I think it's appropriate for the legislature to set both minimum and maximum penalties for different levels of offenses.

I think that you are not reading the posts carefully.

No one is suggesting that minimum and maximum penalties should not be defined for different levels of offenses.

[The Annoyed Man]

Perhaps 3 strikes laws are bad law, but I get why some people support them. This may not be an issue as much here in Texas as it was in California when I lived there—Texas being a much more conservative state—but in California you had a lot of judges just repeatedly giving dangerous people a slap on the wrist and letting them go. The voters were outraged. Eventually, voters became outraged enough that the legislature was pressured into passing Three Strikes into law in March 1994. California voters have twice since amended the strength of the law by ballot initiative.

In November of 1994, Proposition 184 passed with 71.8% of the vote, making the original law even more strict.

In 2000, Prop 36 passed, removing drug offenders from the Three Strikes guidelines.

In 2003, Prop 184 was challenged in the courts, and the state's supreme court upheld its constitutionality.

In 2004, Prop 66 tried to dilute Prop 184's stringent guidelines even further, but it was defeated with 52.7% of voters voting "No".

In 2012, Prop 36 passed overwhelmingly (68.6%-31.4%) which mandated that that life sentences can only be imposed when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent." That seems a good compromise.

So California, which had the nation's strictest three strikes law for a long time, eventually modified its stance. I think that's a good thing. I WANT dangerous people with a track record of violent crime to be taken permanently out of circulation.....by whatever means. But I DON'T want somebody to go to prison for life for a felony purse-snatching.

I remember that when I worked at Daily Journal Corporation in Los Angeles, a publisher of law journals, the husband of a coworker of mine was a prosecutor in the Los Angeles City Prosecutor's Office. He told me "three strikes is a great idea, but it is really bad law".

[WildBill]

In 2012, Prop 36 passed overwhelmingly (68.6%-31.4%) which mandated that that life sentences can only be imposed when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent." That seems a good compromise.

Does it ever define what is "serious or violent"?

It seems to me that imposing a sentence on a new conviction based on previous convictions is akin to double jeopardy.

[nightmare]

It seems to me that imposing a sentence on a new conviction based on previous convictions is akin to double jeopardy.

You mean like Texas treating a second DWI conviction more harshly than the first? I think that's great!

[WildBill]

It seems to me that imposing a sentence on a new conviction based on previous convictions is akin to double jeopardy.

You mean like Texas treating a second DWI conviction more harshly than the first? I think that's great!

Exactly. Each conviction is a separate offense and should be punished separately.

[talltex]

It looks I'm in the minority but I think it's appropriate for the legislature to set both minimum and maximum penalties for different levels of offenses.

There is a huge difference between the legislature setting "penalties" for any offense and "mandatory minimum sentencing". Mandatory sentencing says there is no "gray area" and that all situations are "black and white". For example, the legislature could set a range of 2 to 10 years for an particular offense, and if the offense carries a "mandatory minimum sentence" the person WILL serve time in jail or prison. Without a mandatory minumium sentence, a Judge might look at the totality of the circumstances, and sentence the offender to 2 years, but probate the sentence since it was a first offense, or he didn't think the offense was committed intentionally...such as a case where someone was a passenger in someone else's vehicle that was stopped and searched and found to be carrying drugs hidden in the trunk. The person might very well be convicted of possession/distribution although he professed to have had no knowledge of the drugs, and the Judge looking at his background...listening to his testimony, etc...believes that he truly was just "in the wrong place at the wrong time", and seeks to minimize the punishment. If there was a mandatory sentence for the offense, it eliminates that possibility and takes the Judge's discretion and judgment out of the equation, which can result in a miscarriage of "justice".

[The Annoyed Man]

In 2012, Prop 36 passed overwhelmingly (68.6%-31.4%) which mandated that that life sentences can only be imposed when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent." That seems a good compromise.

Does it ever define what is "serious or violent"?

It seems to me that imposing a sentence on a new conviction based on previous convictions is akin to double jeopardy.

Bill, I don't know, but I suspect that it would be in reference to a new, violence conviction, against someone who has a history of violence convictions. ......but that's just a guess.

On further searching, this is what Wikipedia says about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-stri ... .282012.29

Proposition 36:

• Revises the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent".
• Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
• Continues to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession".
• Maintains the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation."

One impact of the approval of Proposition 36 was that the approximately 3,000 convicted felons who were as of November 2012 serving life terms under the Three Strikes law, whose third strike conviction was for a nonviolent crime, became eligible to petition the court for a new, reduced, sentence.[31] Taxpayers could save over $100 million per year by reducing the sentences of these current prisoners and use the money to fund schools, fight crime and reduce the state’s deficit.[32]

BTW, there are TWO Proposition 36s in the three strikes historical record in California on this issue.....the one in 2000, and the one in 2012. My guess is that it is coincidental that they share the same number.

[kenobi]

If there was a mandatory sentence for the offense, it eliminates that possibility and takes the Judge's discretion and judgment out of the equation, which can result in a miscarriage of "justice".

If twelve citizens unanimously agree the accused is guilty, believing the sentence is 2-10 years in your example, a miscarriage of justice occurs if some judge overrides the jury and reduces the sentence below the minimum the jury was told the defendant would serve if convicted.

[WildBill]

If there was a mandatory sentence for the offense, it eliminates that possibility and takes the Judge's discretion and judgment out of the equation, which can result in a miscarriage of "justice".

If twelve citizens unanimously agree the accused is guilty, believing the sentence is 2-10 years in your example, a miscarriage of justice occurs if some judge overrides the jury and reduces the sentence below the minimum the jury was told the defendant would serve if convicted.

During the trial the jury is not told about any potential sentence and does not have any say in sentencing, except for the penalty phase of certain capital cases when the death penalty is sought.

[Jaguar]

If there was a mandatory sentence for the offense, it eliminates that possibility and takes the Judge's discretion and judgment out of the equation, which can result in a miscarriage of "justice".

If twelve citizens unanimously agree the accused is guilty, believing the sentence is 2-10 years in your example, a miscarriage of justice occurs if some judge overrides the jury and reduces the sentence below the minimum the jury was told the defendant would serve if convicted.

During the trial the jury is not told about any potential sentence and does not have any say in sentencing, except for the penalty phase of certain capital cases when the death penalty is sought.

I was in a jury pool about 15 years ago for a young man who jumped bail after being found guilty of a drug crime. During voir dire the prosecutor said it was a state jail felony, but based on previous convictions he outlined one by one, it finally became a felony with the maximum sentence of 99 years to life. When asked if anyone had an issue with the proposed sentence I was the only one out of about sixty people to raise my hand. I'm sure the defense attorney hated st see me go, but I couldn't in good conscious serve on a jury where a man was plainly guilty of jumping bail and tack on a sentence of life.

I have not been summoned for district jury duty since, only a couple county cases.

[WildBill]

If there was a mandatory sentence for the offense, it eliminates that possibility and takes the Judge's discretion and judgment out of the equation, which can result in a miscarriage of "justice".

If twelve citizens unanimously agree the accused is guilty, believing the sentence is 2-10 years in your example, a miscarriage of justice occurs if some judge overrides the jury and reduces the sentence below the minimum the jury was told the defendant would serve if convicted.

During the trial the jury is not told about any potential sentence and does not have any say in sentencing, except for the penalty phase of certain capital cases when the death penalty is sought.

I was in a jury pool about 15 years ago for a young man who jumped bail after being found guilty of a drug crime. During voir dire the prosecutor said it was a state jail felony, but based on previous convictions he outlined one by one, it finally became a felony with the maximum sentence of 99 years to life. When asked if anyone had an issue with the proposed sentence I was the only one out of about sixty people to raise my hand. I'm sure the defense attorney hated st see me go, but I couldn't in good conscious serve on a jury where a man was plainly guilty of jumping bail and tack on a sentence of life.

I have not been summoned for district jury duty since, only a couple county cases.

I didn't know that this could be done, except in capital cases.

One case I was in the courtroom when the jury foreman, during deliberations, asked the judge which of the charges were felonies.

The judge told them jurors that they could not consider that when deciding on their verdict.

Maybe, since it was voir dire, and not during the trial, the attorneys have more leeway on what questions they can ask.

[Jaguar]

If there was a mandatory sentence for the offense, it eliminates that possibility and takes the Judge's discretion and judgment out of the equation, which can result in a miscarriage of "justice".

If twelve citizens unanimously agree the accused is guilty, believing the sentence is 2-10 years in your example, a miscarriage of justice occurs if some judge overrides the jury and reduces the sentence below the minimum the jury was told the defendant would serve if convicted.

During the trial the jury is not told about any potential sentence and does not have any say in sentencing, except for the penalty phase of certain capital cases when the death penalty is sought.

I was in a jury pool about 15 years ago for a young man who jumped bail after being found guilty of a drug crime. During voir dire the prosecutor said it was a state jail felony, but based on previous convictions he outlined one by one, it finally became a felony with the maximum sentence of 99 years to life. When asked if anyone had an issue with the proposed sentence I was the only one out of about sixty people to raise my hand. I'm sure the defense attorney hated st see me go, but I couldn't in good conscious serve on a jury where a man was plainly guilty of jumping bail and tack on a sentence of life.

I have not been summoned for district jury duty since, only a couple county cases.

I didn't know that this could be done, except in capital cases.

One case I was in the courtroom when the jury foreman, during deliberations, asked the judge which of the charges were felonies.

The judge told them jurors that they could not consider that when deciding on their verdict.

Maybe, since it was voir dire, and not during the trial, the attorneys have more leeway on what questions they can ask.

Could be, I would think void dire allows wide lattitude to the attorneys to weed out people like me.

I figured next time I'd just shut up and legislate from the jury box, but so far no next time.

[WildBill]

I just found this. It sounds like the defendant asked for the jury to decide the sentence. It appears that is legal, at least in Texas.

If a defendant is found guilty, a punishment phase to determine the sentence occurs.

In Texas, the judge is the default choice to decide the sentence. However, a defendant has a right to have a jury decide the sentence.

The punishment phase is similar to guilt-innocence in that both sides make opening and closing statements and put on witnesses. The big difference is that almost any information about the defendant can be considered in the punishment phase. The state may prove up the defendant’s prior criminal record, put on witnesses to testify about the defendant’s character, or try to prove that the defendant committed other bad acts. Basically, the state can ask the judge or jury to consider much more information about the defendant—information that would not be allowed into evidence during the guilt-innocence phase.

Indeed, the prosecutor was trying to weed out Jaguar and his ilk.

http://www.texasdefenselaw.com/texas-cr ... ment-phase" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jaguar]

Indeed, the prosecutor was trying to weed out Jaguar and his ilk.

Due to my ingrained mistrust of authority, it is only fair authority has a mistrust of me.