The supreme court is facing two disputed cases over mandatory minimum sentencing. In today's(Dec.7th) Washington Post editorial, Barry C. Scheck wrote of one particular case and argues that it violates the 8th amendment.



The 8th amendment of the constitution reads:



Questions for debate:

1.)Do mandatory minimums violate the 8th amendment?

2.)Should "victimless crimes" be a factor in sentencing?

The 8th Amendment has historically been drawn into the theme of discretion, the main principle involved in the process of judgement, which is the penalty phase of a case before the court. Finding a judgement does not mean determining guilt or innocence - it means deciding upon a suitable response in the case: a matter of "judgement".

The role of the Judge is not to determine whether something happened or not - that's what the Jury does (yes, we often assign judges to act as jury, too). The judges' role is to exercise judgement, in the highest sense - what should be done about an offense, once it's determined that one occurred - with all the interests of society, the offender, and the victim taken into acccout.

Mandated sentences are critized as eliminating the use of judgement.

Discretion - leeway and considerations from different views - has always been an important part of legal thought and practice. Mandatory sentencing can even be viewed as the sidelining of the Judicial Branch, by Legislative fiat. The farther we go down the mandatory sentencing road, the more serious our fundamental internal conflict.


Everything that can be found or determined about a case is not only a legitimate factor in setting sentence - it's consideration is mandatory. To do less is a miscarriage of justice.

That a crime is seen to be "victimless" will be a major factor in arriving at an informed judgement.

Can you say relativity at work again, its like germs, finding its way always. Is mandatory sentences like more systems automation to our legal system maybe? Its all a product of relativity, i mean what would it be like to have a feminist judge or a jury of hard right christians, its not a new concept. As for the amendment, i think relativity will also consume again into being part of it in terms of understanding and application. For instance, i dont think people in public education should be stopped from engaging in their prayer or religion or what not, but also i could not see public eduction allowing for institutions of any religion to be active in the system, or students forcing onto others their beliefs. i think that would be a fair "judgement" of such a amendment in a federal body, and so on, but if any logic was so complete how could it ever be disputed save relativity, that statement makes sense to me.

I watch sometimes the legal system at work on t.v. It reminds me of how food processing works, or slaughterhouses really. In terms of automation. Do i overall think that such a punishment for the crime above is absurd, yes i do, but that is just me, and i am not someone in such a position or everyone else. So what have you, its like that statement "a village to raise a child" or something along those lines. People dont all see reality the same, and to think that anything we make escapes the effect of us, even our legal system, is silly at best, maybe that can be pure fact, and not relativity.

Sentencing should be based on three things: reforming the criminal, deterring future crimes, and not wasting the life of the criminal. The fact that it is a victimless crime has nothing to do with whether he will change his ways, whether other future criminals will be deterred, or whether the life of the criminal is being wasted for nothing.

What does matter, however, is the specific nature of the crime. I don't think that this man need that much time to learn his lesson. I think that a smaller sentance would be a sufficient deterrant. And I definately think that this sentance wastes the life of the criminal.