Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw Enforcement & Police · 1 month ago

Is there any reason a judge should be lenient just because it is a persons first offense?

I do understand that if a person has priors, the sentence may be more severe, as a concept of progressive consequences.

I just don't think that means the first sentence should be lenient, rather it should be proportional to the crime.'

And I believe this for 2 reasons.

1. We all know right from wrong. It comes down to the choices we make.

2. I believe in warnings, I just don't believe in second warnings.

And you don't have to be a judge to give anyone their first warning.

For example, if you have no criminal record, I can give you your warning right now by saying:

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

2 Answers

  • Mike W
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    It's up to the judge.  They're trusted to decide what the appropriate punishment is for criminal convictions, in accordance with precedent and the law.  It also depends on what the first time offender is being charged with.  Someone up for petty larceny, may get a bench trial, and may never see the inside of a prison.  A first time offender convicted of murder, won't get any leniency. 

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Yes, depending on what it was and what the laws where it happened just have to say about it.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.