Case Could Lead to Fewer Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Says Lulabee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C. –The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Alleyne v. United States, a case that might lead to fewer people getting mandatory minimum sentences. What the Court is being asked to decide is whether the facts that trigger a mandatory minimum must be decided by the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” or by the judge using a much lower legal standard, “a preponderance of the evidence.”

Join Lulabee and her Co Host as they break down the facts about what happened and the impact it will have on federal inmates.

Today was the 1st day in the George Zimmerman Trial.

Let's talk about it.

GAY MARRIAGE LETS TALK ABOUT IT!

CURRENT AFFAIRS, LETS TALK ABOUT IT

Violence in CHICAGO lets talk about it. 

Then lets get back to Sentencing:

“One of the main problems with mandatory minimum sentencing laws is that Congress decides for everyone which factors will determine who gets a mandatory sentence. But once Congress makes the law, who should decide whether a person actually committed the offense that triggers the mandatory sentence – the jury, whose job it is to decide the facts establishing guilt, or the judge? If the Court agrees with other sentencing experts that the higher standard should apply when someone’s liberty is at stake, then fewer people will get stuck with a mandatory minimum at sentencing.”