CJ 230 Project Two final

docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

230

Subject

Accounting

Date

Jun 1, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ColonelLapwingPerson459

CJ 230 Project Two Template Memo to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Complete this template by replacing the bracketed text with the relevant information. To: Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee From: Davyon Gentles Date: April 24, 2024 Subject: Discretionary Actions of Judge I am the public representative of Emily Doe and her family. I am writing to express concern regarding the discretionary decisions and actions made by the judge in the recent conviction of the defendant in Miss Doe’s case. I would like to express my concern regarding the following: As stated in the California State Penal Code, Rape is any act of sexual intercourse where as the victim is not a spouse and/or under the following conditions: The person is unconscious and the perpetrator is aware, as well as the victim being unaware that the act is taking place. The use of discretionary power by the judge can only be seen as an abuse of his title and powers due to the fact that the judge not only grossly under met the minimum sentence for the crime but also has personal and therefore biased ties to the perpetrator as well. The Judge decided to give a sentence of only 6 months which is half of a third of the minimum suggested sentence of the state. This decision could be attributed to the fact that the defendant was a student at the same university as the judge himself is an alum as well as the defendant's economic and social status. The judge's decision not only affects the community as it returns what can only be described as a violent offender to the streets but also it is a blatant lack of care for the wellbeing and overall safety of the victim herself. Lastly, the judge's blasé regard for the severity of the crime gives the impression that others can do the same and get away with a short 6 month vacation in county jail. The biggest misstep in the discretionary process was the fact that the judge put more thought into the perpetrators future and image then he did into the impact and safety of the victim. His leniency in this case not only showed the victim that the justice system was not a safe place for her but also showed the community that men who commit these crimes can get off very easily no matter if the evidence is sound. If the judge had either removed himself from the case when he realized he had a connection to the defendant or even separated his rationale from this connection; the case could have ended very differently and with justice for the victim. The role of discoverability plays into the process of sentencing and the guilty verdict due to the fact that two outside witnesses not only testified to catching the defendant in this act of violence but also attested to the victim being fully unconscious and therefore unable to consent. The victim also had evidence of bruising on her neck and genitals which attests to the violent nature of the attack. Both of these points of evidence should have been used in the decision of sentencing by the judge. Discovery is usually the second step of the decision making process following the initial problem being brought to the court's attention and the gathering of evidence. Sincerely, Davyon Gentles

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version