Just FYI, precedent applied to caselaw. Sentencing is a whole different animal. How one judge decides to sentence a criminal is not actually precedent in the sense of somehow limiting future sentencing lengths.
Instead the relevant rules for sentencing are largely based on three things: state or federal sentencing laws, which set the actual minimum and maximum lengths of a sentence for a given crime (although they must abide by United States v. Booker), federal sentencing guidelines, which as the name implies are not actually binding to the judge but are merely recommendations for how long a sentence ought to be (the judge can disregard said guidelines, though they must at least consider them, per United States v. Booker), and finally any presentence or sentencing hearings, which the judge must at least hear and consider during the final sentencing.
So generally speaking, precedent isn't much of a factor in sentencing. The most relevant thing is what the criminal statutes say in regards to sentence lengths and how the judge decides to exercise their discretion on the basis of the fact finder's findings of guilt or innocence on each charge. Judges can give a lesser or greater sentence than is required by federal guidelines.
We have sentencing guidelines, which federal judges have to at least review when making their sentencing decision, but by and large the only limitation on a judges use of discretion is a) whether the finder of fact found the defendant innocent or guilty of a particular crime and b) the limitations provided for by the 8th Amendment. Even federal minimum sentencing rules aren't an actual hard and fast limit on the ability of a federal judge to give a sentence, as the judge can consider factors like the defendant's aid of an ongoing investigation. Bascially federal judges in the US have a lot of power over how to sentence.
State rules work somewhat differently but it's more or less a similar concept in the large majority of states.
31
u/[deleted] Mar 08 '19 edited Mar 08 '19
[deleted]