>That's called pleading out, which is done in most cases here. Prosecutors
>and lawyers are still employed in the process, however. Mandatory minimum
>sentencing gives the prosecutor even more of an upper hand--plead to a lesser
>charge or go to trial on charges for which, if convicted, you'll get a
>mandatory minimum of 15 years? Lots of people figure, well, three years
>isn't that bad, I guess I'll plead guilty cause the alternative is so much
>worse. Plus, my lawyer is telling me to take the deal, so how much good will
>he/she be defending me in court? (few people get a jks as their esq)
Yes, mandatory sentencing is clearly a system designed to transfer to the police and prosecution the sentencing prerogatives of a judge. Two jurisdictions in Australia have used it, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, though the NT has since had a change of government and reversed mandatory sentencing after well publicised examples such as of aboriginal youths being sentenced to 12 months jail for stealing a packet of biscuits. Then hanging themselves in jail.
Mandatory sentencing in Australia is a racially motivated system, it mainly impacts on Aboriginals, especially those from small remote communities. These communities have severe social problems, but the clear-up rate for petty crime in these small communities is probably 100%. Offenders always confess it seems. Of course the police have discretion about whether offenders are charged and what they are charged with, so mandatory sentencing effectively gives the police total, almost feudal, power over the communities. Given that the social problems are caused by alienation and powerlessness, this doesn't help much.
Mandatory sentencing is clearly a corruption of the judicial system. The legal profession in Australia is fighting it tooth and nail. Combined with draconian prison terms, it is incompatible with the basic principles of the rule of law, because is designed to give police the power pressure people to give up their right to a trial.
Obviously that is intolerable in a free society. Is the legal profession fighting it in the US?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas