Elements Of Discretion In Court Cases

1. In the case, the issue involving the woman falls into the violation of, G. L. c. 272, § 105 (§ 105), which prohibits secretly photographing or videotaping a person “who is nude or partially nude in certain circumstances, including “up skirting.” This violation includes five elements that the Commonwealth must prove, and the second element of this law was not fulfilled. The defendant of the case states that the charged conduct does not come within the scope of the second element because the female passenger was not “nude or partially nude”. He further argues that “partially nude” refers to having one or more private parts of the body uncovered by any clothes and exposed or openly visible. For the woman wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of the body is not a person who is “partially nude,” no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing. Therefore, this assessment was not enough to fulfill all

Judges should have more discretion regarding the sentencing process because the judges are the people who can take all of the facts, look at them, and judge the totality of what the convicted person deserves. Legislatures and citizen initiatives do not have all of this information and so cannot make the same sorts of informed decisions that judges can. When discretion is present in the court case, the judge has the ability to use common sense to enforce the common law and treat people with trust and flexibility. Allowing individuals make mistakes in their past once or twice a second chance follows what judicial discretion is. In most cases, officials should be mutually consistent and transposable on making similar decisions in related cases. So that no one can benefit from an undue advantage choosing the official or exercising improper influence on the official or on the process he operates. Being fair to all parties and not abusing power and role of judicial discretion in courts is an essential