holding that mechanical sentencing is not appropriate because sound discretion requires consideration of all the circumstances of the crime and the sentencing judge is authorized, if not required, to consider all of the mitigating circumstances involved because sentences must be tailored to fit the offender
How later courts described this case
- holding that mechanical sentencing is not appropriate because sound discretion requires consideration of all the circumstances of the crime and the sentencing judge is authorized, if not required, to consider all of the mitigating circumstances involved because sentences must be tailored to fit the offender
- sentence reversed because district court’s policy was to sentence all young men convicted of refusing induction into the military to the maximum prison term
- discussing 1891 statute and noting that Supreme Court support for this proposition "is pure dicta"
- statement of judge’s “policy” coupled with examination of district court records demonstrating that sentencing judge had never imposed less than the maximum sentence for convictions of relevant class
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MATTHES, Chief Judge
(concurring) .
After weighty consideration of all relevant circumstances I have concluded to concur in the majority opinion.
Recognizing the firmly entrenched rule that appellate courts generally will not interfere with the sentence imposed if it is within statutory limits, I am nevertheless persuaded to conclude that, like many rules, it has exceptions. This case is the exceptional one justifying remedial action.
It is hardly debatable that implicit in the imposition of a sentence is the exercise of sound discretion by the sentencing judge. Such exercise encompasses consideration of all relevant factors such as the nature of the offense, the history and background of the defendant, and of course the interest and concerns of society, to mention only a few.
I have been unable to escape the conclusion that the maximum sentence imposed here was the product of an inflexible policy rigidly applied to all offenders of the Selective Service Laws. Such a policy is difficult to defend and condone just as imposition of the maximum sentence on every Dyer Act violator regardless of attending circumstances would be subject to condemnation.