Over the past quarter century, more than twenty-five states and the federal government have experimented with structured sentencing guidelines. Though the formal mechanics of these systems vary considerably, they share the goals of limiting judicial discretion, reducing unwarranted disparities and increasing uniformity in sentencing by tying sentencing recommendations to the severity of the offense and prior criminal history of the offender (Wasby, Stephen J. 2007 from Tonry, 1987). Cases in the Kalamazoo County Court can be very comprehensible to lay persons. In fact, all the lawyers responded well when asked to speak up, and also they were re-phrasing the questions that were not understood. A fact that surprised me was that by the time that the case comes to the Kalamazoo County Court, there is no question of statutory interpretation or matter of law. As seen from the case it was merely a matter of fact instead to be based to the judicial …show more content…
The judge then asks him how he pleas and he pleads guilty. Then the judge say he has to pay a fine of $775.00 and do community service, as well as take an underage drinking class. The judge then stated that if the defendant didn't complete any of the three conditions that there would be greater concusses then he hand the paper work to the court secretary and the defendant then sits back in the seats he was called from after dismissed by the judge. The next two cases are minors in possession as well and the judge hand out similar sentences that includes fines, community service and an underage drinking class. In another case attended that day, there was a case regarding a drinking under the influence (DUI), obstruction of a police procedure, and evading police, the respective lawyer represented the defendant. As I only had the opportunity to witness the defendant’s lawyer to prove his version of the case, as to call witness and asking questions. I felt that he wasn’t effective when presenting his case as he fumbled with his words a lot and was not questions most of time to the defendant. This shows that the counsel is unable to present himself well enough to communicate his facts to the