 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
State v. Chaney
Supreme Court of Alaska (1970)
Defendant: Chaney; the defendant was found guilty of forcible rape and robbery. The trial judge gave the defendant only 1 year concurrent sentence and possibility of parol with the discretion of the parol committee. Now the state appeals and argues that this sentence was too light.
Issue: Was the trail judge too lenient?
Holding: Yes
Legal Reasoning: The court stated that the crime the defendant committed was serious and he should have gotten a longer sentence. The court argued that this light sentence did not serve any of the goals which the criminal justice systme is suppose to serve. The court stated that the norms of the society were not served and the light sentence actually eroded the norms of the society because it made the serious crimes of the defendant not seem serious enough. The court also stated that this light sentence did not work to rehabilitate the defendant and it porvided a bad example for the society. So the court condemned this sentence.