Sentencing Goals and Biblical Principles

The key participants who engage in the American criminal court system include lawyers, judges, jurors, and probation officers. Attorneys bear a judicial obligation to represent the interests of their client with impartiality. Yet the defense attorney and the prosecutor represent a dichotomy of absolute positions. Therefore, defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys must be inherently biased in their representation, as their job is to convince the jury. Attorneys’ moral obligations are to best represent their client’s needs, to the fullest extent that law allows. Thus, the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney are the elements of perspective, each seeking to persuade the jury to produce a verdict. To achieve this, attorneys must utilize the weight of evidence, and the legal circumstances of each case.

The Roles of the Court System

On one hand, prosecutors are tasked to “influence the sentencing decision” and “limit the maximum penalty the judge may impose,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 430). On the other hand, defense attorneys must assess each case, to determine whether it should be brought to trial, or to enter a guilty plea, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 431).

Defense attorneys emphasize certain aspects of the case, showing the defendant in a favorable light, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 431). The defense attorneys job therefore is to attain the lightest possible sentence. There are many ways this can be accomplished; some implementing tactics like judge shopping, or “finding a judge with a lenient sentencing record,” making it less likely that the maximum penalty will be imposed, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 431).

Additionally, Jurors are tasked to decide criminal cases, focusing on two primary elements; (1) evidence, and (2) legal instructions given by the judge, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 379). Jurors, thus are responsible for the determination of judgement given to the accused in the American criminal court. The judge is the ultimate adjudicator of the final sentencing of the courtroom.

A judge’s sentencing decision is influenced by the “bargain struck between the prosecutor and the defense; often deferring to familiar prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 431). The judge then imposes the sentence, “involving a two-stage, decision-making process,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 431).

But the judge’s sentencing is influenced by the jury’s verdict. Lastly, probation officers must perform multiple functions, including “conducting the presentence investigation prior to sentencing, reporting the findings of that investigation to the court, and . . . making a sentencing recommendation to the judge,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 427).

The Most Important Participants

The most important participants in the American criminal court system are its jurors; as the jury is the barrier for the accused, ensuring that the verdict will be just. The “primary purpose of the jury is to prevent oppression by the government,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 354). Juries offer a “safeguard against the corrupt” invoking proprietary protection against “‘overzealous prosecutors” and “compliant, biased, or eccentric judge[s],’” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 354).

A juror’s essence “represents a commitment to the role of laypeople in the administration of justice,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 354). Thus, jurors ensure that the verdict will be rational and level-headed; and “introduce the community’s commonsense judgements into judicial decisions,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 381).

The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1907 that, “[the] zeal displayed in [the] effort to empty the minds of the jurors . . . [is a sign] that the jury . . . is an impartial organ of justice,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 379). In Duncan v. Louisiana, (1968), the Supreme Court named juries “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 357).

Constitutionality

Constitutionally, the jury holds immense relevancy in establishing a formal basis of rights for the accused. Specifically, the U.S. Constitution’s “Article III, Section 2 provides that ‘the trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment shall be by a jury and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed,’” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 355).

Moreover, juries are named in “[t]he Sixth Amendment guarantee[ing] that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,’” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 355).

And jurors are cited in “[t]he Seventh Amendment [whereby] ‘In suits at common law … the right to trial by jury shall be preserved,’” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 355). Thus, the framers sought to invoke protections against despotic judges; whilst invoking God’s natural law to ensure that America’s courts would operate impartially.

The U.S. justice system is therefore inoperable without the implementation of impartial jurors. Whilst attorneys play an important role, the jury itself must consider the persuasiveness of both opposing perspectives, and ultimately reach a “unanimous decision,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 359). The traditional practice of juror unanimity originated in “England during the 14^th century,” and remains consistent in America, apart from “only five states,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 359).

Empirical Evidence

Statistically, juries are responsible for most courtroom participation. Under the national structure, juries reach verdicts 94% of the time, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 379). And in federal courts, “juries convict 82 percent of the time in non-drug cases,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 381). In the event that jurors are unable to reach a conclusion, extensive sequestering may ensue; reinforcing the juror’s importance. Further, jurors hold the power to nullify the law, rejecting direct evidence that a crime was committed. Proponents of jury nullification argue that jurors have a right to dissent against laws they may disagree with or find flawed. Therefore, a juror’s morality and impartiality is an important aspect of jury selection. The venire is sworn to court has “for hundreds of years . . . considered voir dire an inexpensive and efficient method” of jury selection, (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 362, 363).

Biblical Relevancy

The American criminal court system’s sentencing guidelines comport with Scripture in that jury deliberation is relative of impartial judgment and decision making. Historically, jury systems were drawn from the Biblical principles, first applied to court cases in Athens and later in Rome; ultimately formalizing under the 1215 Magna Charta “when English noblemen forced the king to recognize limits of the power of the Crown:,” (Neubauer & Fradella, p. 354).

Old Testament

The Old Testament supports jurors in that “[o]nly on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established,” (Deuteronomy 19:15; ESV).

On the death penalty, the Old Testament decrees “[o]n the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness,” (Deuteronomy 17:6; ESV).

New Testament

Similarly, the New Testament shares its perspective. Jesus decrees a jury is essential in a judgment of his own personal testimony; writing “[i]f I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true.” (John 5:31; ESV). This occurs because where “[t]here is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true,” (John 5:32; ESV).

Specifically, in the book of Matthew, Jesus reminds us that the aggrieved to directly address the faulting party privately; “[b]ut if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses,” (Matthew 18:16; ESV). Thus, the invocation of a witnessing party is essential to achieving an impartial verdict.

The Apostle Paul wrote that “[d]o not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses,” (1 Timothy 5:19; ESV). Paul emphasizes this importance of jury when decreeing judgement or imposing sentencing; writing to the government of Corinth that “[t]his is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses,” (2 Corinthians 13:1; ESV). The Bible is clear that a venire is required to impose any form of worldly judgment in the name of natural law.

Conclusion

In sum, the sentencing goals of the American criminal justice system rely on civic contribution to the extent that the presence of a jury signifies the case will be justly conducted. Although all the contributing members of the courtroom are required for justice to be distributed, they do not guarantee the accused a favorable outcome. The jury holds the most authority in the courtroom when it comes to finding a defendant guilty, or choosing to acquit the charges against them. The sentencing goals of the jury are thus concurrent with God’s established natural law, and man’s inherent obligation to exercise just morality.

Bibliography

ESV. 2 Corinthians 13:1

ESV. Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15

ESV. John 5:31, 32

ESV. Matthew 18:16

ESV. 1 Timothy 5:19

Neubauer, D.; Fradella, H. (2017, 2019). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Publishing.