The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to
require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital
punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general
population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation
supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge. Remedying the irregularities in sentencing
that arise from judicial discretion are supposed to make sentencing more fair and
balanced. In Australia and the United Kingdom, sentencing has been heavily influenced
by judicial idiosyncrasies. Individual judges have a significant effect on the outcome of
the case, sometimes leading the public to believe that a sentence reflects more about
the judge than the offender. Subsequently, creating stricter sentencing guidelines would
promote consistency and fairness in the judicial system. Mandatory sentences are also
supposed to serve as a general deterrence for potential criminals and repeat offenders,
who are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they
are caught. This is the reasoning behind the "tough on crime" policy.
United States federal juries are generally not allowed to be informed of the mandatory
minimum penalties that may apply if the accused is convicted because the jury's role is
limited to a determination of guilt or innocence. However, defense attorneys sometimes
have found ways to impart this information to juries; for instance, it is occasionally
possible, on cross-examination of an informant who faced similar charges, to ask how
much time he was facing. It is sometimes deemed permissible because it is a means of
impeaching the witness. However, in at least one state court case in Idaho, it was
deemed impermissible.
Notably, capital punishment has been mandatory for murder in a certain number of
jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom until 1957 and Canada until 1961.
History
United States
Throughout US history prison sentences were primarily founded upon what is known as
Discretionary Sentencing. Leading up to this period of time sentencing practices were
largely criticized due to the discretionary applications utilized in sentencing. The
assessment for sentencing was determined by three separate decisions (1) policy
decisions, (2) factual decisions, and (3) decisions applying policy decisions to particular
facts. In review of these policies regarding the applications of sentencing, the policy
decisions are those that dictate what considerations should affect punishment. The
second, which is factual determinations are the means by which a judge determines
whether to apply a particular policy to an offender. The third decision judges make in
discretionary schemes is how to apply the sentencing policies to the particular facts.
This authority was applied by the judge under the discretionary sentencing system as
historically practiced. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that mandatory
sentencing was implemented. In short, the difference between mandatory and
discretionary sentencing system lies in policy and application decisions.
Page 58 of 190