Raise your hand

[Isaac]

Example, let's say you essentially want someone to go to prison for 5 years. You know that if you sentence them to 5 years, the prison bureau might release them after 3 for good behavior. so you sentence them with 2 sentences, so that even after their good behavior the second sentence will prevent the early release.

You can also do it for a plethora of 'appearance' reasons to help the victims and their families 'feel' the justice.

 

[Isaac]

What is justice with no possibility of mercy? Maybe think of concurrent sentencing as a legal mechanism for a court to show mercy

I agree, and I hate to see the randomness with which sentences vary for crimes SO much according to judges. On the one hand, when discretion is abused it's hard not to react by wanting to take away the discretion....but when discretion is needed, it's sure nice to have.

You have some judges being too lenient and some being too harsh. I always found it fascinating to daydream about what kind of judge I would be. you know, like the tom petty day dream if i ruled the world? I have a feeling I would be lenient 90% of the time, and I'd be shockingly lenient in cases where I thought an acquittal was appropriate yet the jury found someone guilty for the wrong reasons.

 

[moke123]

I'd be shockingly lenient in cases where I thought an acquittal was appropriate yet the jury found someone guilty for the wrong reasons.

Judges can set aside a guilty finding, but not an aquittal.

 

[Isaac]

Judges can set aside a guilty finding, but not an aquittal.

Yeah, and I like that, it seems handy in rare instances

 

[KitaYama]

Embedded in this view--to me--is that you may view justice more as punishment of the offender, and less as protection of society. Again, not a 'wrong' view, but consider, in respect to your slap/steal wallet scenario...
• What if the person who only stole the wallet is well known to police for many, many previous crimes--and not just petty crimes--and that person is unrepentant in court, claiming he has a right to take what he wants, when he wants it.
• And what if for the person who slapped the doc man AND stole his wallet, this is their first crime ever. This person weeps in court, expressing such remorse at his own actions, and it comes to be understood that had recently lost his job because of insane tariffs, and ICE agents had recently shot his wife in the leg, and his children were going hungry. He committed crimes against his better judgment and under extreme duress.

I think justice should not be a strict accounting of retribution for damage done. It should be a much more nuanced balance of circumstance, intent, remorse (recognition of guilt), and likelihood of re-offence. Justice should ask, who is the offender and what course of action in sentencing is most likely to produce a beneficial outcome in respect to the overall needs of the society.

Concurrent sentencing allows a court to both honour the structured legality (the offender was found guilty and properly sentenced on all charges), and the best interests of society (the offender was deemed a low risk to re-offend, and that prolonged incarceration would compound social harm, not remedy it).

What is justice with no possibility of mercy? Maybe think of concurrent sentencing as a legal mechanism for a court to show mercy.

That's absolutely very interesting point of view. Never had thought about it.

 

[KitaYama]

I always found it fascinating to daydream about what kind of judge I would be.

I know myself well enough to say I could never be a referee, judge, or juror. I’m way too emotional for that kind of responsibility.
Some cases make me angry, others make me overly sympathetic, and I know my decisions would swing too far one way or the other, either too harsh or too lenient.

I watch a lot of live court videos, and honestly, I often catch myself forming an opinion within the first five minutes. That alone tells me I’m not cut out for it. Real justice requires patience and the ability to sit with uncertainty until everything is heard, and I’m just not wired that way.
Honestly, if I were a judge in another life, I’m sure every single one of my verdicts would be appealed and overturned with a completely different sentence.

Huge respect to the people who can actually stay neutral and patient until everything is heard. I’d be a disaster.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

For me, justice means enforcing what the law prescribes. If the law in a country states that crime A carries a sentence of five years in prison and crime B carries a sentence of two years, then justice is served when a person who commits crime A spends five years behind bars.

This is why I struggle to understand concurrent sentencing.

You acknowledge the "multiple states, multiple laws" issue but attempt to narrow it within a single state. Let's look closer than that.

First, states in the USA have many counties. My home state of Louisiana has 64 (except, being contrary souls, we call our counties parishes after the old French custom). Most parishes and counties have multiple criminal court judges (except that in Louisiana, judges can try either civil or criminal cases in the same courtroom).

To reach uniformity of sentence, you have to take into account that each judge is his/her own person. Each prosecutor is a unique person. Each defense attorney is his/her own person. Each perpetrator is his/her own person. What conformity did you expect, again? And how do you intend to get there? The ONLY way to assure uniformity is a robot judge served by robot arresting officers, and I have an idea about how THAT would happen. Normally in old movies, we have the image of a mob of unsatisfied villagers at night going after the bad judge with burning torches, pitchforks, and cudgels, chanting in guttural voices. This robot judge's mob would have LED flashlights, large spanner-type wrenches, and some heavy-duty cable cutters, with the mob chanting in synthetic voices reciting prime numbers.

Seriously, you have non-uniform venues dealing with non-uniform staffers, non-uniform perpetrators, and even non-uniform community standards. How would you EVER hope to get uniformity from such a situation? And given that YOU might one day (Heavens forfend!) find yourself before a robot judge. Would YOU hope for mercy even though you knew it wouldn't be forthcoming? Would YOU hope for that concurrent sentence?

 

[KitaYama]

Embedded in this view--to me--is that you may view justice more as punishment

You got me. That's the part I hate about myself. I know I'm this way and I know I'm wrong, and I've always tried to see a sentence as a way for protection the society and not a vengeance, and I've always failed.

 

[KitaYama]

Embedded in this view--to me--is that you may view justice more as punishment of the offender, and less as protection of society. Again, not a 'wrong' view, but consider, in respect to your slap/steal wallet scenario...
• What if the person who only stole the wallet is well known to police for many, many previous crimes--and not just petty crimes--and that person is unrepentant in court, claiming he has a right to take what he wants, when he wants it.
• And what if for the person who slapped the doc man AND stole his wallet, this is their first crime ever. This person weeps in court, expressing such remorse at his own actions, and it comes to be understood that had recently lost his job because of insane tariffs, and ICE agents had recently shot his wife in the leg, and his children were going hungry. He committed crimes against his better judgment and under extreme duress.

I think justice should not be a strict accounting of retribution for damage done. It should be a much more nuanced balance of circumstance, intent, remorse (recognition of guilt), and likelihood of re-offence. Justice should ask, who is the offender and what course of action in sentencing is most likely to produce a beneficial outcome in respect to the overall needs of the society.

Concurrent sentencing allows a court to both honour the structured legality (the offender was found guilty and properly sentenced on all charges), and the best interests of society (the offender was deemed a low risk to re-offend, and that prolonged incarceration would compound social harm, not remedy it).

What is justice with no possibility of mercy? Maybe think of concurrent sentencing as a legal mechanism for a court to show mercy.

Markk, that was absolutely interesting.
I didn't want to bring it into this discussion, but now that I see your perspective, I'm really curious to see what's your (and possibly others') take on this.

What do you think about taking justice in your hand?
You're a victim, and not satisfied with the outcome.

Watch this
and this
and this (If you're out of time, the first 5 minutes to grasp the story. A little bit different with two above, but still a normal person who thinks it's justice)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What do you think about taking justice in your hand?

In the USA there is a time-limit during which that happens to be legal. A VERY brief time limit.

I know a man who ran a contracting company that supplied personnel to the Navy. I didn't work for him because he was supplying operations people and my employer was supplying network and software engineers as well as system administrators.

Let's call the man "Mr. G". He and his wife were returning home after dinner and a movie. They pulled into their driveway when a thug came out of the shadows and pulled a gun. He was distracted for a moment with Mrs. G and Mr. G took the opportunity to draw and fire his gun a couple of quick shots. In that brief moment, Mr. G took the law into his own hands, but it was a clear case of self-defense, corroborated by Mrs. G and by Mr. G's home security camera. That time limit I mentioned was the interval between when the thug pulled the gun and when Mr. G pulled the trigger, protecting himself and his wife. In that time, an act of self-defense is allowed to be lethal.

Taking the law into your own hands would have been too late if the thug didn't fire the gun but instead re-holstered his gun and ran. We are allowed to react on our own initiative only so long as the threat exists as an immediate possibility of lethal force being used against you.

As a contrary example, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana's airport a couple of decades ago, a serial sexual molester had been arrested and was being transported by airplane to the state's custody as the result of an extradition action. But the father of one of that person's victims was (pretending to be) on the public phone at that airport. When the perpetrator walked by in police custody, the father pulled a gun and saved some taxpayer money for the perp's trial - though he then incurred the cost of HIS trial as a taxpayer expense. But the point there was that his action, taking the enforcement of the law into his own hands, was far too late by USA standards. The perp was no longer a viable threat to anyone.

We have a long-standing tradition that the ONLY viable way to take the law into your own hands is EITHER in the instant of a self-defense situation OR if you perform a citizen's arrest and turn in the suspect over to the authorities without otherwise harming him. Otherwise, leave the law in the hands of judges and just testify against the perp if you have relevant testimony.

And, from what I understand, a citizen's arrest involves enough paperwork that you would never want to do it a second time.

 

[Isaac]

I agree with that summary. And you have to be very careful that the threat is still IMMEDIATE to you and that there is no where else you can easily run to retreat from it. I've read numerous articles recently of people being charged with murder who faced a deathly threat but their mistake was they fired just seconds after the threat changed.....and was no longer all that deadly. I.E. the intruder began to run away, or was simply outside rather than inside.

In the USA, sadly, a simple handgun in the house is a must, to protect yourself against a home invasion but you better make sure you try whatever you can to avoid using it when the time comes. Even with the castle doctrine, overzealous prosecutors are EVERYWHERE. You better try to just point it at them and force them to the floor and call 911 while they sit there rather than shooting them, if at all possible. I've always been determined that I would also fire a warning shot if at all possible, too. I'd rather a hole in my couch and a guy who ran away than a hole in his heart and me in prison - adding insult to injury.
At the end of the day, though, protecting your family is obviously #1. With the crime the way it is in the USA, you can't show up to life totally unarmed, it's foolishness.

 

[Isaac]

I know myself well enough to say I could never be a referee, judge, or juror. I’m way too emotional for that kind of responsibility.
Some cases make me angry, others make me overly sympathetic, and I know my decisions would swing too far one way or the other, either too harsh or too lenient.

I watch a lot of live court videos, and honestly, I often catch myself forming an opinion within the first five minutes. That alone tells me I’m not cut out for it. Real justice requires patience and the ability to sit with uncertainty until everything is heard, and I’m just not wired that way.
Honestly, if I were a judge in another life, I’m sure every single one of my verdicts would be appealed and overturned with a completely different sentence.

Huge respect to the people who can actually stay neutral and patient until everything is heard. I’d be a disaster.

It would definitely be the hardest job in the world. Actually being a prosecutor might be just as hard for me.

While you imagine the difficulties of remaining consistent and fair as a judge, now imagine something weirdly sort-of opposite to that: a job where you must ALWAYS take ONE SIDE and ONE side only - and adamantly and aggressively 'sell' that side of things no matter what your personal feeling - that is, as an Assistant District Attorney. Your boss says: "I think this guy's guilty - PROSECUTE" and you're thinking "no way he's guilty" ,but now you have to go out and do everything you can possible think of to make sure he goes to prison - as an innocent person. imagine it! horrible.
the world is a dark and horrible place without the light of Jesus Christ

 

[Slap]

It would definitely be the hardest job in the world. Actually being a prosecutor might be just as hard for me.

While you imagine the difficulties of remaining consistent and fair as a judge, now imagine something weirdly sort-of opposite to that: a job where you must ALWAYS take ONE SIDE and ONE side only - and adamantly and aggressively 'sell' that side of things no matter what your personal feeling - that is, as an Assistant District Attorney. Your boss says: "I think this guy's guilty - PROSECUTE" and you're thinking "no way he's guilty" ,but now you have to go out and do everything you can possible think of to make sure he goes to prison - as an innocent person. imagine it! horrible.
the world is a dark and horrible place without the light of Jesus Christ

Same goes for defence council .. I can't imagine defending someone who you know full well is guilty but won't admit it. But it happens all the time. In both scenarios it's what they get paid for. My conscience wouldn't handle it either way, so like KitaYama I'm out.

I also saw this pan out first hand on a 3 week trial, as a juror, 90% made their minds up before they got past the opening arguments - so they were not the slightest moved by either the defence or the prosecution.

Live sucks sometimes!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm relatively fortunate that of my four jury sessions, I only had to serve twice. In Louisiana, courts try civil and criminal cases from the same jury pool. The judges might specialize, but they run trials from the same building so take jurors from the same pool.

One case was a civil trial and the plaintiff was an idiot not willing to take responsibility for her own actions (sorry to sound judgmental here). Louisiana allows a jury to assign blame in 10% increments when there is a split responsibility. We found the defendant 30% liable because the plaintiff was a shrill person who was insistent on doing things the wrong way, which we felt was strongly contributory to her injury. The defendant COULD have called over a supervisor but allowed herself to be bullied into doing something the wrong way. As I recall, we quibbled over 20% vs. 30%, but we decided the defendant had SOME level of responsibility.

One case was a criminal trial that involved assault and battery, robbery with special (threat of violence) circumstance, and two r.a.p.e.-related charges. One of the R-word charges was "attempted" because the assailant was so stinkin' drunk that his body wouldn't cooperate. The other charge didn't distinguish between the attempt and having succeeded (which he didn't do.) He was ALSO drunk enough to not realize that when he dropped his pants for the R-word activities, his wallet with his current driver's license fell out of his pants pocket. When the woman reported the incident, police found the wallet in the vacant lot where the assault occurred. We convicted him of 3 of the 4 charges and made a "responsive" verdict to reduce one of the charges from "aggravated" to "forcible" R-word based on a fine point.

Once I was called to a panel, but apparently the perp was hoping that the jury pool would be small enough that he could get a favorable plea deal from the district attorney. However, the pool had enough people that he took a plea deal during the lunch break while the jury was still being seated. He (and his attorney) didn't want it to go to trial, and we were dismissed back to the general pool by 1:30 PM.

The fourth session was a situation where we had a large pool and a light docket, so I never got called. Those of us who had been summoned were released by about 3:30 when the last pending case settled their civil dispute and we were no longer needed.

 

[moke123]

In the USA, sadly, a simple handgun in the house is a must, to protect yourself against a home invasion but you better make sure you try whatever you can to avoid using it when the time comes.

In addition to the Castle Doctrine, many states also have the "Back to the Wall" doctrine. It basically means you can't shoot unless you have no way of fleeing the situation.

 

[Isaac]

In addition to the Castle Doctrine, many states also have the "Back to the Wall" doctrine. It basically means you can't shoot unless you have no way of fleeing the situation.

Requirement to retreat, basically. Yeah, I'd keep that in mind as a rule of thumb in all cases just to be sure, or as sure as possible anyway.
Hopefully, in Arizona, I'm pretty safe making that critical shot in the case of a home invasion where the person is definitely inside the home and I don't recognize them and they offer no alternate explanation - but even there, I'd try to hold them 'at bay' - and only shoot if they continued advancing. (though it would be awful to have them run into another room, and me thinking 'well i can't shoot them in the back as they're withdrawing', only for them to of course retrieve a gun from their backpack).
Overall it's so dicey.

 

[Isaac]

I'm relatively fortunate that of my four jury sessions, I only had to serve twice. In Louisiana, courts try civil and criminal cases from the same jury pool. The judges might specialize, but they run trials from the same building so take jurors from the same pool.

One case was a civil trial and the plaintiff was an idiot not willing to take responsibility for her own actions (sorry to sound judgmental here). Louisiana allows a jury to assign blame in 10% increments when there is a split responsibility. We found the defendant 30% liable because the plaintiff was a shrill person who was insistent on doing things the wrong way, which we felt was strongly contributory to her injury. The defendant COULD have called over a supervisor but allowed herself to be bullied into doing something the wrong way. As I recall, we quibbled over 20% vs. 30%, but we decided the defendant had SOME level of responsibility.

One case was a criminal trial that involved assault and battery, robbery with special (threat of violence) circumstance, and two r.a.p.e.-related charges. One of the R-word charges was "attempted" because the assailant was so stinkin' drunk that his body wouldn't cooperate. The other charge didn't distinguish between the attempt and having succeeded (which he didn't do.) He was ALSO drunk enough to not realize that when he dropped his pants for the R-word activities, his wallet with his current driver's license fell out of his pants pocket. When the woman reported the incident, police found the wallet in the vacant lot where the assault occurred. We convicted him of 3 of the 4 charges and made a "responsive" verdict to reduce one of the charges from "aggravated" to "forcible" R-word based on a fine point.

Once I was called to a panel, but apparently the perp was hoping that the jury pool would be small enough that he could get a favorable plea deal from the district attorney. However, the pool had enough people that he took a plea deal during the lunch break while the jury was still being seated. He (and his attorney) didn't want it to go to trial, and we were dismissed back to the general pool by 1:30 PM.

The fourth session was a situation where we had a large pool and a light docket, so I never got called. Those of us who had been summoned were released by about 3:30 when the last pending case settled their civil dispute and we were no longer needed.

that's interesting.
I always wonder why I never been called to jury duty. Despite being
1) registered voter for years on the same party with current address
2) always maintain current vehicle registration with correct address
3) property owner of record in my regular full name, no trust

for going on 20 years, but never jury duty for me. I'd love it.

 

[Isaac]

Same goes for defence council .. I can't imagine defending someone who you know full well is guilty but won't admit it. But it happens all the time. In both scenarios it's what they get paid for. My conscience wouldn't handle it either way, so like KitaYama I'm out.

I also saw this pan out first hand on a 3 week trial, as a juror, 90% made their minds up before they got past the opening arguments - so they were not the slightest moved by either the defence or the prosecution.

Live sucks sometimes!

For some reason (call me a bleeding heart), I'm somewhat more open to the 'defending a guilty person' than 'prosecuting an innocent person'. Kind of hard to put words to it, but something like this: The system works most fairly when each and every accused person has full advocacy on their behalf going both directions simultaneously and for some reason that seems to shine brightest to my brain when it comes to a guilty person's defense, compared to the opposite. Not really sure why, haven't given it much thought yet.

 

[RonPaii]

I'm relatively fortunate that of my four jury sessions, I only had to serve twice. In Louisiana, courts try civil and criminal cases from the same jury pool. The judges might specialize, but they run trials from the same building so take jurors from the same pool.

One case was a civil trial and the plaintiff was an idiot not willing to take responsibility for her own actions (sorry to sound judgmental here). Louisiana allows a jury to assign blame in 10% increments when there is a split responsibility. We found the defendant 30% liable because the plaintiff was a shrill person who was insistent on doing things the wrong way, which we felt was strongly contributory to her injury. The defendant COULD have called over a supervisor but allowed herself to be bullied into doing something the wrong way. As I recall, we quibbled over 20% vs. 30%, but we decided the defendant had SOME level of responsibility.

One case was a criminal trial that involved assault and battery, robbery with special (threat of violence) circumstance, and two r.a.p.e.-related charges. One of the R-word charges was "attempted" because the assailant was so stinkin' drunk that his body wouldn't cooperate. The other charge didn't distinguish between the attempt and having succeeded (which he didn't do.) He was ALSO drunk enough to not realize that when he dropped his pants for the R-word activities, his wallet with his current driver's license fell out of his pants pocket. When the woman reported the incident, police found the wallet in the vacant lot where the assault occurred. We convicted him of 3 of the 4 charges and made a "responsive" verdict to reduce one of the charges from "aggravated" to "forcible" R-word based on a fine point.

Once I was called to a panel, but apparently the perp was hoping that the jury pool would be small enough that he could get a favorable plea deal from the district attorney. However, the pool had enough people that he took a plea deal during the lunch break while the jury was still being seated. He (and his attorney) didn't want it to go to trial, and we were dismissed back to the general pool by 1:30 PM.

The fourth session was a situation where we had a large pool and a light docket, so I never got called. Those of us who had been summoned were released by about 3:30 when the last pending case settled their civil dispute and we were no longer needed.

I was called twice. In my county I only need to call the courthouse in the morning for a week to see if I need to come in; never had to go.

 

[moke123]

I get called to jury duty every 2 to 3 years and always get released from the pool right off the bat. I'm friends with or have worked with most of the judges, D.A.'s, and Defense Attorneys. I often know the defendants or witnesses too, or have worked on their behalf in the past.

Whenever my friends get summonsed for JD they often call me to see if I'm involved in any of the cases to be heard that day so they know they can't be picked. I'm usually on a lot of the witness lists just as a precaution even though I wont be called to testify.