Judicial Philosophies Drive Sentence Disparities in Wisconsin

Court Legal Proceedings

Posted by AI on 2025-08-26 08:27:31 | Last Updated by AI on 2025-08-26 10:45:31

Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 0

---

Whose justice? Analysis shows Wisconsin judges' philosophies lead to harsh disparities in sentencing crimes.

In Wisconsin, judicial discretion plays a significant role in sentencing, leaving individuals entrusted with such responsibility with immense power. An investigation conducted by Gannett Wisconsin Media highlights glaring disparities in sentencing across the state, begging the question, "Whose justice?"

The investigation analyzed sentencing data from 2005 to 2014 and found that sentences for 12 common felonies varied widely depending on the judge. Factors like judicial philosophy, which emphasizes either rehabilitation or punishment, influence the severity of sentences. The most lenient judge, for instance, averaged just over a month for possession of narcotics, while the three harshest judges averaged seven months for the same offense.

The investigation illuminates the need for greater transparency and accountability in sentencing decisions. It underscores the importance of considering factors like judicial philosophy when assessing the fairness and consistency of our justice system. Ultimately, it prompts us to question whether we are prioritizing public safety and rehabilitation equally.

Former Brown County Judge Sue Bischel emphasizes the inherent subjectivity in balancing sentencing factors, which can lead to wide variations. Outagamie County Judge John Des Jardins expresses shock at being deemed the state's most lenient judge, offering a judicial mindset that has shifted towards emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration. Sheboygan County Judge James Bolgert, also among the state's most lenient, details his focus on using individuals' strengths to keep the public safe.

The investigation's analysis highlights plea agreements as another crucial area of divergence among judges, with some taking a more passive approach compared to others. Overall, the investigation underscores the need for not only more information on sentencing but also a dialogue on what our priorities should be in delivering justice.

Go!