There has been a rash of gang robberies around SanFran
recently. Very disturbing, we're talking about mob action,
a breakdown of society.

There have been a few arrests. Let's say the defendant
has no prior record, but the judge is irate over
these incidents. He sentences the max allowed by law.

Is that permitted, or can that be appealed as unreasonable,
maybe even a violation of the 8th Amendment?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:f8be1e8e-1b61-4613-986f-261d5ccfeea4n@googlegroups.com...

There has been a rash of gang robberies around SanFran
recently. Very disturbing, we're talking about mob action,
a breakdown of society.

There have been a few arrests. Let's say the defendant
has no prior record, but the judge is irate over
these incidents. He sentences the max allowed by law.

Is that permitted, or can that be appealed as unreasonable,
maybe even a violation of the 8th Amendment?

--
Rich

I think you answered your own question when you said "He sentences the max allowed by law."

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On February 27, Rick wrote:

There has been a rash of gang robberies around SanFran
recently. Very disturbing, we're talking about mob action,
a breakdown of society.
There have been a few arrests. Let's say the defendant
has no prior record, but the judge is irate over
these incidents. He sentences the max allowed by law.
Is that permitted, or can that be appealed as unreasonable,
maybe even a violation of the 8th Amendment?

I think you answered your own question when you said "He sentences the max allowed by law."

It isn't so simple.

By custom, a first offender receives a light sentence. The high end is reserved for the beloved career criminals.

Now, if a convict in one of these cases received the max, with no prior
record, would not an extreme sentence constitute "unusual", per the Eighth?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/28/2022 1:34 PM, RichD wrote:

On February 27, Rick wrote:

There has been a rash of gang robberies around SanFran
recently. Very disturbing, we're talking about mob action,
a breakdown of society.
There have been a few arrests. Let's say the defendant
has no prior record, but the judge is irate over
these incidents. He sentences the max allowed by law.
Is that permitted, or can that be appealed as unreasonable,
maybe even a violation of the 8th Amendment?

I think you answered your own question when you said "He sentences the max >> allowed by law."

It isn't so simple.

By custom, a first offender receives a light sentence. The high end is reserved for the beloved career criminals.

Now, if a convict in one of these cases received the max, with no prior record, would not an extreme sentence constitute "unusual", per the Eighth?

The laws usually already specify a longer/higher(*) sentence for repeat offenders. A judge has discretion to impose the legal minimum sentence,
the legal maximum sentence, or anything in between.

Some states and crimes have "determinate sentencing" laws that specify particular circumstances that will increase or decrease the sentence.
But whenever the law allows a judge discretion, he can do just that: use
his discretion.

(*) that is, a higher fine if the judge imposes a fine instead of or in addition to jail/prison time.


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:0a87af23-4b3e-429c-84f0-74302c3aa5bcn@googlegroups.com...

On February 27, Rick wrote:

There has been a rash of gang robberies around SanFran
recently. Very disturbing, we're talking about mob action,
a breakdown of society.
There have been a few arrests. Let's say the defendant
has no prior record, but the judge is irate over
these incidents. He sentences the max allowed by law.
Is that permitted, or can that be appealed as unreasonable,
maybe even a violation of the 8th Amendment?

I think you answered your own question when you said "He sentences the
max
allowed by law."

It isn't so simple.

By custom, a first offender receives a light sentence. The high end is >reserved for the beloved career criminals.

Now, if a convict in one of these cases received the max, with no prior >record, would not an extreme sentence constitute "unusual", per the
Eighth?

--
Rich

I think it IS that simple. If the law gives a judge a minimum and maximum allowable sentence for a given crime, then that's the legally allowable
range. Now if the law requires a judge to give a lesser sentence for a
first offender, then that's different. That's the law defining the
punishment for a first offender. But otherwise, if the law gives the judge
a range and leaves it up to the judge to determine where the offender falls
in that range, that is up to the judge.

Now if the law itself is flawed - let's say the allowable range is way out
of whack for similar crimes and sentencing rules, then maybe you could make
a case. You could also perhaps make a case if it could be shown that a
judge routinely gives more severe sentences based on race or gender or something not related to the facts of the case. But that's a different
issue.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)