Tales of a judge's life on and off the bench

How do judges sentence? This question is frequently asked but infrequently explored. What factors are taken into account? How do judges see their role? How do they apply the aims and purposes of sentencing? How are factors such as public opinion taken into account? How Judges Sentence explores these questions through interviews with Queensland judges. The judges explain how they come to their decisions when sentencing, how they view judicial discretion, and how they exercise it. The book carefully examines their comments within the legislative and theoretical contexts of sentencing. The analysis yields valuable insights into judicial methodologies, perceptions, and attitudes towards the sentencing process. How Judges Sentence provides a major contribution to debates on sentencing.

For two centuries, federal judges exercised wide discretion in criminal sentencing. In 1987 a complex bureaucratic apparatus termed Sentencing "Guidelines" was imposed on federal courts. FEAR OF JUDGING is the first full-scale history, analysis, and critique of the new sentencing regime, arguing that it sacrifices comprehensibility and common sense.

The appropriate amount of punishment for a given crime is an issue that has been debated by scholars, philosophers and legal professionals since the beginning of civilizations. This book seeks to address this issue in all of its complexity by providing a comprehensive overview of the sentencing process in the United States. The book begins by discussing the overall concept of punishment and then proceeds to dissect individual aspects of punishment. Topics include: the sentencing process; responsibility of the judge; disparity and discrimination in sentencing; and sentencing reform. This book is an ideal text for introductory courses on the judicial system, criminal law, law and society. It can be an essential resource to help students understand patterns in the wide discretion and latitude given to judges when determining punishments within the framework of the United States judicial system.

A sitting federal judge’s lively and provocative recounting of six cases, to make the argument for revisiting overly punitive sentences Murderous mafia capos. The police officer who brutalized Abner Louima. A purveyor of child pornography. These are some of the defendants to have come before U.S. District Court Judge Frederic Block to ask for reductions in their prison sentences. All of them have been found guilty and have already served decades in prison, but under the 2018 First Step Act they are entitled to petition for reconsideration and release. In a rare glimpse behind the bench, Judge Block recounts the cases of six incarcerated people who have done heinous things but have nevertheless petitioned him for their release. He then explains the criteria the First Step Act has spelled out for his consideration. And, in a novel twist, he asks the reader, “What would you do?” Judge Block puts us out of our suspense in a third section of the book where he tells us what he did do in each case and why, as he weighs each compassionate release request, evaluating issues ranging from “the trial tax,” to sentencing disparities, to judicial incompetence. Finally, Judge Block makes the compelling case that the First Step Act should be extended to state court judges, since state prisons house about 90 percent of those incarcerated. In a book that could be the basis for a new season of Law & Order, Judge Block challenges our ideas about punishment and justice.

Crimes and Punishments: Entering the Mind of a Sentencing Judge provides a cross-section of different crimes for which Judge Frederic Block sentenced a convicted criminal.