The federal sentencing guidelines did this. And it was remarkably unsuccessful. The guidelines (for a while) mandated the term of the sentence, giving the judge little leeway. In some instances, the judge was forced to give harsher sentences than the cases deserved, the guidelines having taken away all leeway that was previously the purview of the judge.Well that was a bit of a clusterfuck. Was the purpose just anti-drug politics?
Indeed, the drug sentence were so punitive the sentencing guidelines were uniformly despised, but they were created in an anti-drug political atmosphere by Congress and there was little that could be done about it.
Eventually, litigating the guidelines became an expertise all by itself.
Whereas, prior to the guidelines, judges could use their discretion to either enhance punishment or show leniency as the cases deserved, there was no such discretion after the guidelines. And the guidelines tend to fall on the harsher side of sentencing.
It's really a sad state of affairs. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
I agree that sentencing requires some leeway...but as Olivia pointed out, not that much. When money is talking to that extent, someone needs to find a way to make it shut the hell up.
WTF: I hear ya.
C