The American jurisprudence system, should be a system, in which all are treated equally under the law, and of which therefore, wealth, power, position, or lack thereof, should be non-factors in such justice so rendered. In fact, of course, in America, there is the justice system as applied to the weakest and least powerful amongst us, and there is the justice system as applied against those of power, position and wealth; of which, the difference between these two justice systems, is immense, unfair, and unjust.
Then there are the laws so written, of which, there isn’t a single person, institution, or entity, that actually can comprehend or ever effect each of these laws, without error, without contradiction, or with absolute consistency. In fact, the more laws so written, the more confusion that there so occurs, as well as the more opportunity for those that are clever, or have money, or connections, to circumvent the good intention and purpose of well-intentioned laws.
All of the above serves to indicate that as much as we might desire for our justice system, to exercise no discretionary or arbitrary power, whatsoever, that because the law and the interpretation of that law, is not always so cut and dry, then that just isn’t going to ever happen. Additionally, judges and the justice system actually want to have their individual impact upon what is so being adjudicated, as opposed to the mere opening up of a very thick book, finding the relevant law that so applies, and then simply applying it, without any further ado.
This thus indicates that judges within the justice system, not only need to have some degree of discretionary power, but such discretionary power has its good purpose in existing. After all, as much as some people want to believe that a certain crime, should always have a specific sentence, the fact of the matter is, that each situation, no matter how similar it may well be to something previously adjudicated upon, that it always has its own peculiarities, which should be taken into consideration, in ordered to render fair justice.
While there are all sorts of people, including lawyers, that decry the inconsistencies so demonstrated between one sentence to another in regards to what appears to be the same basic crime, and of which, the thinking is that such discretionary treatment in sentencing should therefore be eradicated or reduced considerably, they don’t seem to properly comprehend that to take such discretion away from the judge, which would thereby simplify such justice, in order to make such justice seemingly consistent, wouldn’t in summary, make necessarily for fair justice. That is to say, the same sentence for everyone in regards to similar crimes, without taking into due consideration, the full circumstances of that crime, and the people involved in it and impacted by it, isn’t just.
It would be well to remember that in every single step of those so accused of a given crime, there is always discretion so being rendered, to wit, by the police officer who has made the initial arrest, to the bail so set, to the charges so determined by the prosecutor, to the plea bargain so being offered, and/or the trial so set, and then the sentence so being rendered. In each of these steps, discretion has been used time and time again; so then, to ignore all that, and simply then, to make it so that the judge must strictly follow the sentencing guidelines as dictated for that crime, is an injustice.