Mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary. Recognizing this fact, there are public officials on both sides of the aisle who support amending some components of federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws. But before such reform can proceed, Congress must ask itself: With respect to each crime, is justice best served by having legislatures assign fixed penalties to that crime? Or should legislatures leave judges more or less free to tailor sentences to the aggravating and mitigating facts of each criminal case within a defined range? In Ireland there are three different types of sentencing a judge can impose on the accused; minimum, maximum …show more content…
(reference goes here) Discretion in sentencing can allow both intentional and unintentional bias; therefore the existence of mandatory sentencing reduces the risk of unethical judicial behaviour and corruption. Additionally in America data has suggested that humans are inclined to be more sympathetic to particular groups in society, for example; females are less likely to receive the death penalty whereas if the victim is a female the defendant is seven times more likely to receive the death penalty (reference goes here) It has been suggested by academics that reasons for such disparities in sentencing is due to societal perceptions of women being more vulnerable thus needing greater protection rather than the severity of the crime itself. Firm sentencing mandates are more likely to produce impartial decisions because they are less susceptible to individual bias. ( reference goes