Mandatory Sentences Loom as Issue Ahead of Supreme Court Session

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | September 30, 2004 | GARY FIELDS and LAURIE P. COHEN

[Brilliant]

The three branches of government are jockeying to gain control over criminal sentencing should the Supreme Court change or even strike down the current system of federal guidelines.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Monday in two cases that the Justice Department maintains show that federal sentencing guidelines are constitutional. Enacted in 1987, the guidelines designate factors judges must consider in sentencing defendants. They have served as a model for criminal sentences ever since.

The high court threw the sentencing system into turmoil in June. In a case from Washington state, it ruled that any factor that increases a criminal sentence under the guidelines -- other than a prior conviction -- must be admitted by a defendant in a plea bargain or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

That ruling has left lawyers, judges and legislators uncertain about the validity of federal sentencing guidelines. It also has prompted speculation that Congress will impose mandatory sentences for a raft of crimes, from minor offenses to major felonies, leaving judges no latitude to allow for individual circumstances. The Supreme Court in 2002 affirmed the legality of mandatory minimum laws enacted by Congress.

The emerging battle lines address a central question over the assumed separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches: Who has control over sentencing?

[Brilliant]

Another opportunity for the Supreme Court to usurp the power of the legislative and executive branches.

[Drammach]

Not necessarily..

The Supremes may lay the onus back on to "the people"...

After all, it is the duty of the legislatures ( federal and state ) to determine what is a crime, and what the penalty for commission of the crime may be..
Until the people decide to change the method of sentencing, those legislatures will continue to do what they believe the people want done.. ( In a perfect world. )

[1rudeboy]

Actually, this is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to uphold the 5th Amendment. Unless you don't see a problem with having your sentence doubled for extraneous factors that the jury did not consider.

[Brilliant]

I don't have a problem with the Supreme Court throwing out the guidelines, so long as the Court understands that the consequence of that is that Congress will pass one-size-fits-all sentences that are mandatory and not within the discretion of the judges. That is clearly the prerogative of Congress, and the Courts have no power to intrude on that decision.