Limits to Judicial Discretion (1 Viewer)

[hYperTrOphY]

What are the factors which limit judicial discretion?

 

[rnitya_25]

limits on judicial discretion are those things which remove a judge's ability to freely shoose what sentence to impose on the convicted offender. main limits are seen in judicial guidelines, mandatory sentencing(where a judge has no discretion and has to follow what the parliament says) and maximum penalties.

hope that helps

 

[Jago]

don't forget precedents

 

[rnitya_25]

oh yeah that too, fanx jago. i've see the guy in your avatar somewhere. and it keeps reminding me of someone from 'that 70's show' who is it?

 

[goan_crazy]

R V daniella dawes is an awesom3 case 2 refer 2 w/ judical discretion :uhhuh:

 

[Jago]

It's from "Happy Days". Fonzie.

it was a 1950s show i think.

Ninja Edit: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070992/

show was made in 1974, the guy is Arthur 'Fonzie' Fonzarelli, played by Henry Winkler

 

[*n.a.t.a.l.i.e*]

Where would I find out about this case? I searched google and found LIAC pages that threw me off.

 

[goan_crazy]

Where would I find out about this case? I searched google and found LIAC pages that threw me off.

Basically, She recieved 5 years for killing her autisitic son due to judicial discretion.
It was a huge case from last year.
read this:
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2004_06_20/story_1145.asp

ps: natalie, I jus searched the LIAC pages and found it under that
read the below: some good stuff I found which may help ur understanding of it

R v DAWES – five year good behaviour bond for manslaughter
Daniella Dawes was charged with the manslaughter of her ten year-old son who had severe autism. Judge Roy Ellis heard the case in the Parramatta District Court. The crown appealed against the five-year good behaviour bond she was given.

R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363, 29 September 2004
1. Full text available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/ (E)
follow these steps natalie:
select Case Name Search.
type in dawes
2. Full text available on Unreported Judgments.
select NSW
type in r v dawes
student can email copy of case to their email address
3. Index to Sydney Morning Herald articles available on Infoquick at http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/infoquick/about.cfm:
type in daniella dawes
4. Full text of newspaper articles available on Factiva
type in daniella dawes and set date to all dates

hope that helped

 

[*n.a.t.a.l.i.e*]

Thanks soooooo much!!! I've read a bit, so basiclaly the judicial discretion was what exactly? Was it because she defended herself through substantial impairment by abnormality of mind and hence received a lesser sentence? Is judicial discretion shown in the judge's acknowledgement of this?

 

[goan_crazy]

Thanks soooooo much!!! I've read a bit, so basiclaly the judicial discretion was what exactly? Was it because she defended herself through substantial impairment by abnormality of mind and hence received a lesser sentence? Is judicial discretion shown in the judge's acknowledgement of this?

discretion is basically the power to make different decisions and choices
it is held by police and judicary
judicial discretion-discretion by the judiciary
Yes, he used discretion to give a lighter sentence.
Get it now?

 

[rnitya_25]

It's from "Happy Days". Fonzie.

it was a 1950s show i think.

Ninja Edit: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070992/

show was made in 1974, the guy is Arthur 'Fonzie' Fonzarelli, played by Henry Winkler

ah yes! right you are, now i remember it! hehehe

 

[ManlyChief]

limits on judicial discretion are those things which remove a judge's ability to freely shoose what sentence to impose on the convicted offender. main limits are seen in judicial guidelines, mandatory sentencing(where a judge has no discretion and has to follow what the parliament says) and maximum penalties.

hope that helps

don't forget precedents

Also, judicial discretion is limited by the fact that judges can only make decisions on matters that are brought up by either party, e.g. if trying a case summarily, a magistrate does not have the authority to use his/her discretion to acquit a person by way of a defence that would have succeeded if that person had raised it but which that person did not.

 

[hYperTrOphY]

Thanks everyone

 

[Jonathan A]

Extract from one of my essays on judicial discretion:

...Discretion can challenge fairness producing different outcomes, the law simply providing a means to make a decision, yet does not entirely regulate that process, hence ‘where law ends, discretion begins.’ Goodrich also argues that decision-makers rely on social and political factors rather than law to make their decision.
Discretion can also come in many forms. It can be whether to act or not and/or which course of action should be taken (Viscount v Times Newspapers). The criminal justice system is familiar with weak discretion, a decision that is unappealable but done so in accordance with standards or rules and deviational discretion, where a person determines tests such as ‘reasonableness’.