Judges have experience and knowledge of the law and in
sentencing offenders, thus should be trusted to exercise their
moral judgement at their own discretion when imposing a
sentence.
A judge can bring his of hers own personal emotions to a case,
and become personally involved to such a case, which may result in
an unfair and unjustified sentence. For instance, perhaps a judge
had been connected to person who was killed by a drunk driver and
the same judge was sitting as a judge on a case where the defendant
drink driving injured a person. The judges own morals and life
experience on this may result in a harsher sentence than what may
have been reached if the judge was not personally connected to the
case. A judge’s discretion should be used with caution.
Many judges believe that judicial discretion is important and
vital part of imposing sentences, as just like fingerprints no two
cases are the same, so how can the guidelines calculate the
eventuality of every single circumstances surrounding every case
brought forth to the court. It is vital to use the moral judgement
of judges to tailor sentences to every individual circumstances and
variety of facts.
Different judges in different states come to different
conclusions because their laws are different and/or their judges
have interpreted the law differently. Since judges are human, they
sometimes make mistakes or even use their own personal views to
make a ruling.