Do not assume that I have am not familiar with the victims of sexual assault based on my view of this issue. In this case you would be extremely mistaken.

Secondly, what they are discussing is that a disagreement about a decision a judge makes is less important than the autonomy that we afford judges in making sentencing decisions.

The reason we turn suspected criminals over to an impartial judiciary is specifically to avoid letting passion influence decisions about guilt and sentencing.

Sit down with someone serving a life sentence. I've done that. Have you?

That's terrible logic. I disagree with the gesture of burning the American flag, I think it's a horrid thing to do. That does not mean I think freedom of speech should restrict the act and punish those who do so. You can disapprove of the way something is used, but still value and fight to uphold that right.

Maybe you should consider how your attitude leads to mass incarceration and perpetuation of white supremacy.

As an attorney who spent a lot of time studying the social basis for the law your logic is frighteningly wrong. Being the victim of a crime DOES NOT give you a moral high ground, if anything it makes you the LEAST IMPORTANT person in a discussion of how society should treat people who committed a wrongful act against you.. Criminal punishment is a social and not an individual function, and the debate over how our judiciary works and the appropriate punishment to mete to someone for a wrongful act is open to EVERYONE including the perpetrator. The victim is too focused on their individual experience to be able to reliably measure the actual impact of the crime or criminal behaviour on society at large or to be able to determine the best mechanism for reducing the frequency of that behavior.The judicial system is not and never was designed to seek revenge or moral satisfaction for the victim; if anything it is intended to replace individual vengeance with sound social policy. It is sound social policy to give a judge the power to amend the punishment of a crime to match the facts of the case. It is sounder policy for our judiciary to be independent because that independence acts as a check on the excess of the legislature and the voter in protecting the rights of the accused, which are categorically more important than the rights of the victim.

That's not two faced. They're saying that as a general rule discretion is a good thing, and that even though in this case they don't like the result, they're not willing to ruin what is mostly a good thing over one bad example.

Feels before reals huh? In any case, done and done, I still don't agree with you.

You're not helping your side of the argument by throwing a temper tantrum and personally attacking everyone who disagrees with you. This is a sub largely populated by members of the legal community and people with an interest in law. Try using logic and reason and see if it gets you any farther than hysterics.

Mandatory minimums don't make sense when applied to something as relatively harmless and widespread as drug possession/use. Sex crimes, on the other hand, make up a far smaller percentage of crimes committed and are far more heinous, so the effects of minimum sentences would not be as far-reaching or damaging.