That does look like a well-considered perspective, though perhaps a little extreme. Judges are given some flexibility, called "judicial discretion". (But I don't know how this may vary across the different kinds of courts.) Some judges abuse their power; maybe they are exercising some wrong kind of discretion.

Though I'm no expert, I'll offer a scenario anyway -- something I've seen in the news somewhere:

There is a "3-strikes" law. A wide array of crimes appear to qualify as "strikes". If someone committed armed robbery and severely wounded a few people, in three such incidents, then we'd want a severe penalty because the crimes are repeated and severe. However, some people get "strikes" for minor offenses, leading to very severe penalties for very mild offenses.

I'm looking it up now: I find this: https://www.mintpressnews.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-unconstitutional-three-strikes-law/207222/. The final line in it is: "[N]o one should [serve] a life-sentence for bouncing checks!"

Now, the really proper way to address this, I think, is that legislatures should have passed better laws in the first place, and when they passed 3-strikes laws, they didn't get it quite right. The legislative remedy is that the legislature would have to revise the law as soon as possible and probably apply the revision retroactively. I believe the legislatures are sometimes rather slow to correct their mistakes.

Now, given that there is such a law which sometimes leads to over-severe consequences, and the law is written such that the over-severe consequences (very long prison terms) are mandatory in a wide array of circumstances, then I would like there to be, at least, some judicial discretion in the sentencing, such that the sentence might be softened if the offenses were minor or had mitigating circumstances. (I'm imagining this as a bench trial -- I'm not sure how this would play out in a jury trial, but the principles should be the same.) But if the legislature wrote mandatory very-severe sentences with no flexibility, in the law, then the judge would have no choice but to apply the extremely severe sentence, hence it's been characterized in that article as "a life-sentence for bouncing checks".

I wish I didn't have to trust a judge with anything, however, I'd prefer judicial discretion rather than a completely rigid "life-sentence for bouncing checks" kind of situation.

Another scenario is (historically, and depending on which state one is in) very long prison sentences for possessing small amounts of marijuana -- I think there needs to be some way to ease up on those kinds of nonviolent offenders, even when legislatures passed really draconian laws about them.

There are lots of situations where a person might be found with small amounts of marijuana, even some situations where the person didn't even know it was there.

Not only do I wish I didn't have to trust judges (nor juries), I also don't trust some of these legislatures to get everything right. The whole government is just something we have to work with because we'd be worse off without a government. So we need measured amounts of trust, and we continually try to make the government and laws better somehow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4APbwb3meU

So I am the Heath Ledger character ? Unless you have another obscure reference, that is not the worst thing I have been referred to as. Wait, I must confess that I have not seen that movie in some time. I seem to remember the roles being reversed later on. So then I am the villain ? Well I like a good movie villain so again that is not near as bad as I am usually called on OPP.

Anytime I am not called a r****t or have my name pasted into an obscene picture on OPP, it's a good day.

That does look like a well-considered perspective, though perhaps a little extreme. Judges are given some flexibility, called "judicial discretion". (But I don't know how this may vary across the different kinds of courts.) Some judges abuse their power; maybe they are exercising some wrong kind of discretion.

Though I'm no expert, I'll offer a scenario anyway -- something I've seen in the news somewhere:

There is a "3-strikes" law. A wide array of crimes appear to qualify as "strikes". If someone committed armed robbery and severely wounded a few people, in three such incidents, then we'd want a severe penalty because the crimes are repeated and severe. However, some people get "strikes" for minor offenses, leading to very severe penalties for very mild offenses.

I'm looking it up now: I find this: https://www.mintpressnews.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-unconstitutional-three-strikes-law/207222/. The final line in it is: "[N]o one should [serve] a life-sentence for bouncing checks!"

Now, the really proper way to address this, I think, is that legislatures should have passed better laws in the first place, and when they passed 3-strikes laws, they didn't get it quite right. The legislative remedy is that the legislature would have to revise the law as soon as possible and probably apply the revision retroactively. I believe the legislatures are sometimes rather slow to correct their mistakes.

Now, given that there is such a law which sometimes leads to over-severe consequences, and the law is written such that the over-severe consequences (very long prison terms) are mandatory in a wide array of circumstances, then I would like there to be, at least, some judicial discretion in the sentencing, such that the sentence might be softened if the offenses were minor or had mitigating circumstances. (I'm imagining this as a bench trial -- I'm not sure how this would play out in a jury trial, but the principles should be the same.) But if the legislature wrote mandatory very-severe sentences with no flexibility, in the law, then the judge would have no choice but to apply the extremely severe sentence, hence it's been characterized in that article as "a life-sentence for bouncing checks".

I wish I didn't have to trust a judge with anything, however, I'd prefer judicial discretion rather than a completely rigid "life-sentence for bouncing checks" kind of situation.

Another scenario is (historically, and depending on which state one is in) very long prison sentences for possessing small amounts of marijuana -- I think there needs to be some way to ease up on those kinds of nonviolent offenders, even when legislatures passed really draconian laws about them.

There are lots of situations where a person might be found with small amounts of marijuana, even some situations where the person didn't even know it was there.

Not only do I wish I didn't have to trust judges (nor juries), I also don't trust some of these legislatures to get everything right. The whole government is just something we have to work with because we'd be worse off without a government. So we need measured amounts of trust, and we continually try to make the government and laws better somehow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4APbwb3meU

So I am the Heath Ledger character ? Unless you have another obscure reference, that is not the worst thing I have been referred to as. Wait, I must confess that I have not seen that movie in some time. I seem to remember the roles being reversed later on. So then I am the villain ? Well I like a good movie villain so again that is not near as bad as I am usually called on OPP.

Anytime I am not called a r****t or have my name pasted into an obscene picture on OPP, it's a good day.

Your point is well made, and I agree. With stipulations. A judge overriding a clear improper verdict is part of his job. A judge LESSENING a sentence because, as in your example, it is too extreme, is also part of his job. Where it is WRONG is when a judge declares a LAW to be improper, and orders it not to be followed or to be changed to what HE thinks is right. Please do not misunderstand. There are times when laws should be overturned, but by due process, not by a judge trying to implement his personal choice of what is "right" or "fair". He can and should address injustice in the case he is trying. He should NOT issue a blanket edict on the law itself. If a lot of judges are throwing out cases or reducing sentences, then it is time to reexamine the statutes.

So obscure that you picked up on it Those were the lines dropped on Heath Ledger's antagonist after losing their jousting match in 'A Knight's Tale'. As often as we may disagree, I would neither call you a r****t nor inject you into an obscene picture.

After all...as has been said to me, "You may be wrong-headed, but I still like ya'."

Two Trump supporters die and go to Heaven.

They ask God if he'd answer one question.

"Of course," God says.

They ask how the Democrats r****d the e******n in 2020.

"It wasn't r****d," God replies.

The Trump supporters look at each other and say, "This conspiracy goes higher than we thought "

Useful, that is nonsense collected from the rear end of a male bovine. It has also been debunked a dozen times on OPP. I know that you know this. You are just doing the l*****t mantra of ignoring facts and repeating lies, hoping that people will be gullible enough to believe it.
Facts:
It is a p******c.
People are going to catch it and die.
President Trump responded FASTER than any democrat wanted him to, and received mass attacks for doing so.
President Trump sliced through mass red tape to get us treatments and v*****es as fast as possible.
President Trump initiated procedures in anticipation of v*****es and methods to get them to the public asap.
Democrats used the above to attack Trump for purely political reasons, and because he would not illegally mandate face masks. No other reason.
There is zero zip nada evidence that Trump rallies became "superspreaders".
President Biden has almost totally followed Trump established procedures in combating the p******c. Nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing to "end the p******c in months" as his supporters claimed he would do.
All of which add up to one thing. The bovine excrement I mentioned earlier. You want to argue any of the above stated facts? Fine. Let's have at it.

================
President Trump has effective leadership. Everything gets done and on time. He left Biden everything he needs for the p******c. Biden has not done anything but lied and complained.

Useful, that is nonsense collected from the rear end of a male bovine. It has also been debunked a dozen times on OPP. I know that you know this. You are just doing the l*****t mantra of ignoring facts and repeating lies, hoping that people will be gullible enough to believe it.
Facts:
It is a p******c.
People are going to catch it and die.
President Trump responded FASTER than any democrat wanted him to, and received mass attacks for doing so.
President Trump sliced through mass red tape to get us treatments and v*****es as fast as possible.
President Trump initiated procedures in anticipation of v*****es and methods to get them to the public asap.
Democrats used the above to attack Trump for purely political reasons, and because he would not illegally mandate face masks. No other reason.
There is zero zip nada evidence that Trump rallies became "superspreaders".
President Biden has almost totally followed Trump established procedures in combating the p******c. Nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing to "end the p******c in months" as his supporters claimed he would do.
All of which add up to one thing. The bovine excrement I mentioned earlier. You want to argue any of the above stated facts? Fine. Let's have at it.