What's the point of having judges if we're just going to tie their hands with mandatory minimum sentences, I mean it's not like they're just rubber stamps or something. I was talking to a lawyer friend the other day and he was saying how frustrating it is to have to send someone to prison for a fixed amount of time when the circumstances of the case clearly don't warrant it.
I think we should scrap mandatory minimums altogether and let judges do their job, which is to weigh the evidence and make a fair decision based on the specifics of the case. This would allow for more nuanced sentencing, taking into account things like the defendant's background, their likelihood of reoffending, and the impact on their family. It's not a radical idea, plenty of other countries manage just fine without mandatory minimums.
Discussion (3)
Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.
Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →
I've seen it happen in Grimsby, a young lad got caught shoplifting from my store, and the judge took into account that he was from a troubled home and had just lost his job, so he got a lighter sentence, but if there were no minimums at all, would that mean the judge would have to consider every single factor in every single case, like the defendant's family background or something, it sounds like a lot of extra work, and I'm not sure it would be more effective, I mean I've heard of cases where the perpetrator had a tough upbringing but still went on to commit serious crimes.