Criminal Justice: Analyzing Discretionary Decisions - Module Four

This assignment analyzes a case involving a student from an elite educational institution in California who was convicted of sexual assault. The assignment focuses on a discretionary decision made by the judge, who sentenced the defendant to six months in jail and lifetime registration as a sex offender, despite the prosecution's recommendation of six years in state prison. The analysis explores the impacts of this decision on the victim, the principles of justice, and the application of equal treatment. It also examines the laws and policies that may have influenced the judge's decision, including the California Penal Code Section 261 and the upcoming California Assembly Bill 701. The student is asked to compose a memo to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee regarding the judge's actions and discretionary decisions. The document references the case of People v. Turner and relevant legal information to support the analysis. The assignment highlights the complexities of judicial discretion in the context of sentencing and its potential impact on the pursuit of justice.

ANALYZING DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS
Module Four Assignment Template
Complete the table below by replacing the bracketed text with the relevant information.
Discretionary Decision Impacts of Decision Laws and Policy
It can be seen that the judge has executed a
discretionary power in favor of the accused by not
giving him a minimum punishment of 3 years for
sexual assault provided by the California Penal
Code and upcoming California Assembly Bill 701
which makes it mandatory for the punishment of 3
years against a sexual offense against an
unconscious or intoxicated person (California
Legislative Information, 2013).. Therefore Judge
by giving 6 months of punishment did not comply
with the minimum sentencing tenure in case of
sexual assault (People v. Turner)
The negative impact of this decision is upon the
victim of the sexual assault with whom justice
might not have been done and denied by the
decision of the court. The victim who might have
expected a severe punishment for the culprit who
acted against her will and constituted a sexual
relationship with her. This can be seen as a severe
degradation of the principles of justice and equity
as the judge has acted in a biased way by partially
providing judgment in favor of the defendant
because he is a first time of offender. Therefore,
the Judge did not follow the theory of equal
treatment on campus and of campus rape as
provided in the case of People v. Turner.
The judge might have influenced by the factor that
the act of the victim cannot go with the definition
of rape provided by the California Penal Code but
only qualifies the provision of felony sexual
assault envisaged by the California Penal Code.
Therefore, the judge by exercising his discretion
pronounced the sentence for 6 months along with
the lifetime registration as a sex offender against
the prosecution's demand of sentence of six years
in state prison for the crime for the accused.
Reference:

ANALYZING DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS
California Legislative Information. (2013). Penal Code Section 261. Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=261.&lawCode=PEN
Leagle. (2019). People v. Turner. Retrieved from https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20180808037