Who determines what punishment a convicted defendant receives?

Judges, not juries, almost always determine the punishment, even following jury trials. In fact, a common jury instruction warns jurors not to consider the question of punishment when deciding a defendant's guilt or innocence. In a very few situations, juries do take part in sentencing decisions. For example, in capital punishment cases in some states, a judge cannot impose the death penalty in a jury trial unless the jury recommends death rather than life in prison.

Do people convicted of the same or similar crimes receive similar sentences?

Some state and all federal criminal statutes include "mandatory sentences," which require judges to impose specific and identical sentences on all defendants who violate those laws. Mandatory sentencing laws are a response by state legislatures or Congress to their perception of the public's desire to end judicial leniency and treat alike all people who break the same law.

More commonly, criminal statutes do not carry mandatory sentences. Rather, judges can take a number of factors into account when deciding on an appropriate punishment. For instance, judges may consider the defendant's past criminal record, age, and sophistication; the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and whether the defendant genuinely feels remorse. In short, mandatory sentence laws "fit the punishment to the crime," whereas judges prefer to "fit the punishment to the offender."

What factors do judges use in determining sentences?

If the judge has discretion to determine the sentence, the defense may bring to a judge's attention an infinite number of factual circumstances that may move the judge to impose a lighter sentence. The following are examples of such circumstances (called "mitigating" factors):

• the offender has little or no history of criminal conduct
  
  
• the offender was an accessory (helped the main offender) to the crime but was not the main actor
  
  
• the offender committed the crime when under great personal stress; for example, had lost a job, was late on rent, and had just been in a car wreck, or
  
  
• no one was hurt, and the crime was committed in a manner that was unlikely to have hurt anyone.

Just as mitigating circumstances can sway a judge to lessen a sentence, "aggravating" circumstances can compel a judge to "throw the book at" an offender. A previous record of the same type of offense is the most common aggravating factor. Other aggravating circumstances grow out of the way a crime was committed, as when an offender is particularly cruel to a victim. Sometimes, laws themselves specify aggravating factors, such as the use of a weapon.

Copyright 2006 Nolo

Copyright © 1994-2006 FindLaw, a Thomson business

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.

View Previous Selections