Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 8
Lesson 10: Rule of law or discretion in sentencing?Evaluating the argument
Rule of Law or Discretion in Sentencing?
Evaluate and discuss the argument presented in this video.
Suppose that a person is arrested for holding up a bank and taking money from the teller.
Now consider the following possible variations on this case:
- Variation 1: The gun was fake.
- Variation 2: The gun was real, but not loaded.
- Variation 3: There was no gun; it was just his fingers in a jacket pocket.
- Variation 4: The total amount of money was 400 dollars.
- Variation 5: There were children in the bank.
- Variation 6: The gun was not only loaded, but it went off and almost hit someone.
- Variation 7: The person doing the robbing was starving from not having eaten in three weeks.
- Variation 8: The bank had refused to give the person a loan for an automobile the previous day.
For each variation, do YOU think the added information should count as an aggravating factor, a mitigating factor, or a neutral factor in determining the severity of the sentence the person receives for his crime?
Discuss with a friend!
In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act created a disparity between the penalties for possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. The act imposed the same penalties on crack cocaine at almost 100 times that of powder cocaine. The reasoning was based on the idea that crack cocaine—the solid rock form of the drug—is more dangerous than powder. Yet this sentencing has disproportionately affected poorer black communities, where the crack form of cocaine is more prevalent, compared to white communities, where the more expensive powder form of the drug is more likely to be found. Though this disparity was reduced from 100:1 to 18:1 in 2010, previous sentencing has contributed to mass incarceration in the US and continues to exacerbate it.
With this background information in mind, consider the following case:
John is an 18-year-old black teenager from a traditionally poor neighborhood in Pennsylvania, and was on track to be the first in his family to attend college—that is, before he was arrested for possession of crack cocaine. This arrest was John’s first offense, and he claims that he was not the owner or user of the drug. However, for John’s crime, Pennsylvania law requires a sentence of 10 years in jail with no possibility of parole.
How do YOU think the judge should approach this case?
- The judge should consider John’s life circumstances, and the racial and economic disparities within our justice system, and distribute a lighter ruling than the law strictly requires. The judge should distribute a punishment which addresses the severity of the crime without inhibiting John’s future or preventing it from deciding the remaining course of his life.
- The judge should adhere to the rule of law approach and distribute the sentencing decided upon by legislators. The judge should not alter the sentence and instead should distribute the sentence equally in order to uphold a precedent.
Discuss with a friend!