|
We can find case after case, sure - but we still have no idea how this affects the overall point (that sometimes, the arrests are wrongful and invented by the child or put into the child's head by an elder) . . . anecdotes are great, because they get us all riled up over the extreme cases, but they also occlude our minds when we try to figure out just how often the accused is indeed wrongly accused.
Even beyond that, it's true that judges make mistakes - that's why you can vote judges out of office very few years, in most jurisdictions. However, mandatory sentences are a pretty bad idea on the whole, for a variety of reasons:
-First, they tie prosecutors' hands, because mandatory sentences cause problems with plea bargains or scenarios that are "special cases." While we always hear negative things about plea deals, it's selection bias - more options is generally better than fewer when it comes to this sort of thing. No one is going to bargain into a mandatory sentence, and if there's an iffy case (remember the burden in criminal court), the prosecutor would be completely remiss to not get something out of it.
-Second, it's pretty clear after a couple decades of research that juries have difficulty with crimes that have mandatory sentences. You may very well see conviction rates go down as a result, or lesser included charges become more successful. The cure might actually be worse than the current sickness.
-Third, with literally nothing to lose because of a mandatory sentence, defense attorneys are forced to "go for broke" whereas before, they might hedge by seeking a guilty verdict with a reduced sentence. It changes the risk/reward dynamic, and that's exactly what Mr. Fagan was describing in his diatribe.
I think Mr. Fagan's description was pretty on-point, to be honest, but I'm surely coming from a completely different place than someone with children or etc.
|
Threaded Mode
