Today, Turner Booth joined me for the whole day to experience what the federal court would be like. It was nice that he was here because we were able to talk to each other about what was going on.
At 9:30 AM this morning, I watched my first court procedure: a criminal sentencing with Judge Zouhary. I took notes and I think I figured out the basic structure of how they work.
So just as an overview, a sentencing occurs as the last court procedure in a criminal case when either a defendant is convicted of one or more counts of a crime or a defendant pleads guilty (whether or not it is a plea bargain). Its basic structure is as follows:
-The presiding judge checks over the case and reviews to make sure there are no objections in the presentence report (the report written by the court that gives background information on the defendant to better assist the judge in making a decision on how to sentence an individual)
-The defendant recommends and argues for what the defense believes to be the appropriate sentence for the crime
-The judge reviews what the defendant says and asks questions
-The prosecutor recommends and argues for what the prosecution believes to be the appropriate sentence for the crime
-The judge reviews what the prosecutor says and asks questions
-The judge reviews all information (see below; a judge must make an "individualized assessment based on the facts presented")
-The judge gives the sentence
In his chambers today, Judge Helmick showed Turner and me a book called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. He explained to us that the sentencing guidelines were created in the 1980s, with the goal of similar sentences for individuals in the federal court system. When sentencing, judges would be required to adhere to the guidelines set forth in the book by using a system of assigning a "level" of the crime. One simply follows a table inside the book which points to the number of months a sentence should last. This is because before federal sentencing guidelines, sentences could widely vary from one side of the country to the other, despite the United States being under one, unified federal court system that is broken up into different divisions.
This is an interesting issue because of a 2007 United States Supreme Court case in which the court stated that district judges are no longer required to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. Actually, in a case, judges cannot automatically sentence an individual to that a number of months in prison calculated directly from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual by presuming that they are reasonable. The Supreme Court now says that judges must review facts from a case and must make an "individualized assessment based on the facts presented" for each and every case.
In this case, we got the perspective of the judge in trying to choose a sentence. However, we also talked to a prosecutor about the sentence that the prosecution wanted for the defendant. Although I am not allowed to talk about the specifics, it was very interesting hearing the two different sides in arguing for the best sentence for an individual convicted of a crime.
So here's an interesting question: is it good or bad that we have the sentencing guidelines? Would it be better to be adhering exactly to the sentencing guidelines or should we instead allow judges to use their own discretion in addition to the sentencing guidelines in imposing sentences? Regarding the former, sentences would be consistent, but would essentially remove a person from a trial, whereas in the latter, full thought and consideration is given to a defendant, but sentences wouldn't be consistent, and may arguably be said not be fair when two defendant who have committed the same crime will receive different sentences. Or should we even have the sentencing guidelines and are they even necessary? I have a poll running in the right sidebar where you can vote and tell me what you think.
So the end of another day. Even though it was only my second day, I feel like I am very on track in regards to meeting my goals (see "Introduction and Overview"). I have already seen the perspectives from different individuals involved in the legal system, and I was able to learn a lot about sentencing today. All of these have to do with getting an overview on the functions of the courts of the United States, and I feel good about what I have accomplished so far.
Another excellent blog entry, Poom. I learned a lot about the process by reading today's entry. I think you raise an interesting question. As someone who must occasionally hand out sentences, I can't imagine not having discretion to modify the consequences because although the infractions might be similar from one incident to the next, the circumstances surrounding the infraction seldom are.
ReplyDelete