Decisions of sentencing considerably receive attention from policymakers and researchers who consider the sentence choice determinants. Since historical times, judges in the United States at federal and state levels when imposing sentences possess broad discretion. Discretion is the power deliberated through the legal system to a judge, allowing them to govern the course of a case presented to the court with statute’s established strict regulations or without proceedings interference ( du Bois-Pedain, 2017) . It is granted by a jurisdiction's legal apparatus, which means that through the use of higher powers, the decisions of a court can be contested. Judicial discretion has limits provided for by a country's constitution. Comparatively, Equity is vital in every judicial system as it lays groups for ensuring every individual gets justice or sentenced appropriately depending on a crime. Equality includes equal rights, status, and opportunities regardless of an individual's background, ethnicity, or level of income. The law provides a space where all individuals are equals before a judge. Most democracies in Western countries embrace an ideal version of equality as provided by the jurisdictions law. Therefore, discretion and equality concepts of judicial sentencing with different merits depending on the argument's point of view.
Judges input their personal opinions when making a sentencing decision which leads to discrepancies and unpredictability in criminal offenses similar to sentence issuing. Judicial discretion allows a judge to make considerations for unique cases through the application of the law ( Mallett, 2015) . This way, the judge can make necessary exceptions or take strict measures depending on the matter. For example, when a judge is faced with a murder case where the defendant murdered due to drug influence, the presiding judge can reduce the sentence and send the accused to a mental institution. Similarly, the judge can give a complete sentence to an appellant who has been charged with human trafficking and has a record of such criminal offenses. Also, discretion allows preceding judges to make sentencing decisions when the law is silent or insufficient. Some cases require more than the provisions of the law, such as when dealing with a child illegally smuggled into the United States. The law requires the person to be deported immediately to their country. Still, in this case, the judge can order that the child's family's whereabouts be known before the child is sent back instead of just deporting the kid without knowing his/her family's whereabouts. Leal processes that are equitable can be promoted by discretion, thus allowing the judge to consider the defendant's circumstances. For instance, when the employer sues a family breadwinner from the low social-economic class for minor fraud. The judge can decide to give a ruling which provides ample time for the appellant to repay the losses they caused.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The court ensures that every individual has equal access to justice systems any time they need, provided they follow the correct procedures. Equality allows equal sentencing of similar cases everywhere in the United States ( Bierschbach, 2020). Criminal justice should not leave loopholes that would enable favoritism based on race, wealth, color, and social status. A justice system that promotes equality allows the judge to make unbiased decisions based on social or economic demographics. For example, a Caucasian judge must ensure equality when a white individual sues an African-American for sexual assault where the evidence is insufficient. Equality also ensures gender-based disparities are eliminated as judgments are made based on the provided legal guidelines. When dealing with children's custody lawsuits, a presiding male judge should judge the case based on the evidence presented before the subject. The judge should not be influenced by his/her emotions in making the decision thus should give custody to the most deserving parent. In the United States, society believes that justice should be served to every individual without discrimination. Equality allows the government to provide lawyers to people from low-income earning backgrounds to defend themselves against wealthy individuals in a court of law. Even though equality strives to promote justice regardless of an individual’s background, judicial discretion is critical as it allows the judge to consider the circumstances surrounding the case.
References
Bierschbach, R. A. (2020). Equality in Multi-door Criminal Justice. New Criminal Law Review , 23 (1), 60-73.
du Bois-Pedain, A. (2017, September). In Defence of Substantial Sentencing Discretion. In Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 391-435). Springer Netherlands.
Mallett, S. J. (2015). Judicial discretion in sentencing: A justice system that is no longer just. Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. , 46 , 533.
