Integrity of Commuting the Sentences of Criminals
Dennis AuBuchon
November 24, 2008
The practice of commuting sentences of criminals receives wide attention when they occur. This is as it should be. Commuting sentences of those convicted of a crime affects the judicial system. The President and the governors of the states have the power to make decisions to commute sentences of criminals. This decision can be a difficult one and their decision has consequences. The definition of commuting as it applies to the law is: to change (a prison sentence or other penalty) to a less severe one. An example of this would be a death sentence changed to a life in prison sentence.
The process involved in commuting sentences varies from state to state. Commuting sentences at the state level does not usually make the news as much as ones generated at the federal level. The practice of commuting sentences levied by a court is one that is questionable at best. Our court system is great and the practice of commuting sentences offers criminals hope that their sentence may be changed. There needs to be established conditions, if not already in place, that is consistent across state boundaries when sentences by courts qualify for modification. However, I feel the practice of commuting sentences, except in extenuating circumstances should not take place. While there may be times that sentences issued seem more severe than they should have been it sends a bad signal to the public.
When I hear that sentences are changed, I feel this is wrong. Based on our system of justice court decisions involve an analysis of the facts surrounding a case. This analysis is the basis for the decisions. Judges and juries are usually involved in the decision process on cases brought before them. Juries sometimes hand down verdicts and the judge issues the sentence and other times the judge completely decides the penalties.
As stated above, there may be cases where mismatches exist between the crime and he sentence. Other times the severity of the sentence does not coincide with the crime. One thing that our justice system needs is consistency in sentences handed down by all courts. While there are different circumstances, from case to case concerning particular crimes, criminals need to know penalties will match the crime. While I am not completely familiar with all statutes in every state there appears to be different rules for various crimes with little if any consistency. There may be cases where some minimum sentencing requirements are in place but in most cases, this differs from state to state.
Another factor in the commuting of sentences is the establishment of standards regarding specific crimes. If such standards exists and the sentences are applied in agreement with them, then no commuting of sentences should occur either by the governor of a state or the President. Regardless whether standards are in place or not the sentences issued by the courts should be comparable to the crime involved with the case. The greater the impact, the more severe the sentence should be.
Judges in most cases have a high degree of integrity in establishing sentences for crimes that are before them. If a judge issues a sentence in which their personal opinion appears to be involved, this is wrong and may be an example where a sentence qualifies to be changed. It is important to recognize that any action to commute a sentence of any criminal is in direct conflict with the decision handed down in a court of law.
In discussing the necessity for minimum sentencing requirements, two examples are provided. While they are only examples, they are two different crimes with different impacts. These examples are ones for which sentences issued by a court should not be changed.
The first example involves a case in point of a white-collar crime where people had their homes placed in jeopardy by builders and their bad financial decisions. The impact was felt by all those who purchased homes. There was great impact for this crime and as such, the sentence should not be one that should be changed. It would be a disservice of justice to the victims. While the mere impact was felt by the victims and those who committed the crime, the criminals in this case should not have the opportunity to have their sentence reduced. Another example involves that of murder. This crime affects families on both sides but especially the family of the victim (s). How it is committed should have a bearing not only on the sentence but also on any opportunity to have a sentence altered by either a Governor or the President.
To summarize points made in this article it is important to note that sentences issued in a court of law should be respected. Our judicial system is not flawless as mistakes can be made but changing sentences should be the exception rather than the rule. Governors and the President commute sentences all the time but care must be taken on which ones should qualify for the action. Decisions by courts go through a process of examining the evidence by either a judge and jury or just a judge. Based on the facts the sentences are decided. If new evidence surfaces giving the appearance a bad decision was made a sentence should be altered by the appropriate governmental level to make it right. We are human beings, and human beings make mistakes and this is why we have the judicial system we have where wrongs can be made right. Those who have the authority to commute sentences by courts should do so with caution as to not circumvent the judicial system we have in place.
The process involved in commuting sentences varies from state to state. Commuting sentences at the state level does not usually make the news as much as ones generated at the federal level. The practice of commuting sentences levied by a court is one that is questionable at best. Our court system is great and the practice of commuting sentences offers criminals hope that their sentence may be changed. There needs to be established conditions, if not already in place, that is consistent across state boundaries when sentences by courts qualify for modification. However, I feel the practice of commuting sentences, except in extenuating circumstances should not take place. While there may be times that sentences issued seem more severe than they should have been it sends a bad signal to the public.
When I hear that sentences are changed, I feel this is wrong. Based on our system of justice court decisions involve an analysis of the facts surrounding a case. This analysis is the basis for the decisions. Judges and juries are usually involved in the decision process on cases brought before them. Juries sometimes hand down verdicts and the judge issues the sentence and other times the judge completely decides the penalties.
As stated above, there may be cases where mismatches exist between the crime and he sentence. Other times the severity of the sentence does not coincide with the crime. One thing that our justice system needs is consistency in sentences handed down by all courts. While there are different circumstances, from case to case concerning particular crimes, criminals need to know penalties will match the crime. While I am not completely familiar with all statutes in every state there appears to be different rules for various crimes with little if any consistency. There may be cases where some minimum sentencing requirements are in place but in most cases, this differs from state to state.
Another factor in the commuting of sentences is the establishment of standards regarding specific crimes. If such standards exists and the sentences are applied in agreement with them, then no commuting of sentences should occur either by the governor of a state or the President. Regardless whether standards are in place or not the sentences issued by the courts should be comparable to the crime involved with the case. The greater the impact, the more severe the sentence should be.
Judges in most cases have a high degree of integrity in establishing sentences for crimes that are before them. If a judge issues a sentence in which their personal opinion appears to be involved, this is wrong and may be an example where a sentence qualifies to be changed. It is important to recognize that any action to commute a sentence of any criminal is in direct conflict with the decision handed down in a court of law.
In discussing the necessity for minimum sentencing requirements, two examples are provided. While they are only examples, they are two different crimes with different impacts. These examples are ones for which sentences issued by a court should not be changed.
The first example involves a case in point of a white-collar crime where people had their homes placed in jeopardy by builders and their bad financial decisions. The impact was felt by all those who purchased homes. There was great impact for this crime and as such, the sentence should not be one that should be changed. It would be a disservice of justice to the victims. While the mere impact was felt by the victims and those who committed the crime, the criminals in this case should not have the opportunity to have their sentence reduced. Another example involves that of murder. This crime affects families on both sides but especially the family of the victim (s). How it is committed should have a bearing not only on the sentence but also on any opportunity to have a sentence altered by either a Governor or the President.
To summarize points made in this article it is important to note that sentences issued in a court of law should be respected. Our judicial system is not flawless as mistakes can be made but changing sentences should be the exception rather than the rule. Governors and the President commute sentences all the time but care must be taken on which ones should qualify for the action. Decisions by courts go through a process of examining the evidence by either a judge and jury or just a judge. Based on the facts the sentences are decided. If new evidence surfaces giving the appearance a bad decision was made a sentence should be altered by the appropriate governmental level to make it right. We are human beings, and human beings make mistakes and this is why we have the judicial system we have where wrongs can be made right. Those who have the authority to commute sentences by courts should do so with caution as to not circumvent the judicial system we have in place.
Print
Email
