Posted on 01/13/2005 10:05:10 AM PST by alessandrofiaschi
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a major criminal law decision, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Wednesday that federal judges no longer must follow the long-criticized sentencing guidelines in effect since 1987. The 5-4 ruling was a defeat for the U.S. Justice Department, which had defended as constitutional the federal sentencing guidelines that apply to more than 60,000 criminal defendants each year. Thousands of cases nationwide have been on hold awaiting a high court ruling. The decision, which makes the guidelines advisory instead of mandatory, was seen as the most important criminal law decision of the court's term. Legal experts said it would have broad impact. Craig Margolis, a former federal prosecutor who now practices law in Washington, D.C., said tens of thousands of imprisoned defendants will seek to be resentenced and federal courts will have to decide if the ruling applied to them. The court reaffirmed the principle in its ruling in June, striking down a similar state law that any facts necessary to support a longer sentence must be admitted by the defendant or proven to the jury. In the court's main opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said federal judges are no longer required to apply the guidelines, and only can consider them, along with certain other sentencing criteria, in deciding a defendant's punishment. The guidelines, long criticized by criminal justice reform advocates for imposing overly harsh sentences on a mandatory basis, set rules for judges to calculate punishment and attempt to reduce wide disparities in sentences for the same crime. Even some judges have criticized the guidelines for taking away their sentencing flexibility. The guidelines say which factors can lead to a lighter sentence and which ones can result in a longer sentence. The experts said the ruling will shift power back to judges.
BREYER: UP TO CONGRESS TO ACT
Breyer said the U.S. Congress could act next. "Ours, of course, is not the last word: The ball now lies in Congress' court." Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, vowed to "thoroughly review the ... decision and work to establish a sentencing method that will be appropriately tough on career criminals, fair, and consistent with constitutional requirements." But Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee's ranking Democrat, said, "Congress should resist the urge to rush in with quick fixes that would only generate more uncertainty and litigation and do nothing to protect public safety." Critics of the guidelines welcomed the ruling and said Congress should now reform the sentencing laws. "Congress must not react with a 'quick fix' and miss the chance to solve a lingering and serious national problem. They need to get it right this time," said Barry Scheck, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Breyer said the court removed two provisions that make the guidelines mandatory and that provide standards for appellate review. The new standard would be whether the sentence was "reasonable," he said. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer in the opinion. The dissenters complained about making the guidelines advisory and warned it will result in a return to sentencing disparities. Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling will "wreak havoc" in the courts for the indefinite future. Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray told reporters the Justice Department was disappointed in the decision. "In the wake of this ruling, judges have greater discretion," he said. "Greater discretion tends to mean greater disparity."
I guess Edwin Edwards is glad to hear this news.
Anyone for a Constitutional Amendment which states:
"Congress shall have the authority to establish minimum and maximum penalties for all federal crimes."
No.
I agree.
Congress has always had the power to set minimum and maximum penalties. The existence of these ranges is the source of the sentencing disparities the dissenting justices cite. But to establish an elaborate set of formulas to determine sentencing is to deprive judges of the ability to take into account mitigating circumstances and other factors which are generally lumped into the general category of "justice." Furthermore, a lot of the problems encountered in Federal sentencing could be eliminated if the Federal government didn't try to duplicate State laws.
"This is an unsolvable issue. Some sentences are going to be too harsh because judges don't have discretion, and some sentences are not going to be harsh enough because judges do have discretion."
Yeah, Mom always told me, "Life isn't fair. Deal with it."
You nailed it.
---and it will not be solved by any legislative body--Congress included--
Man, did you ever nail that too! Trust Congress to solve something? Anything? HAH!
Another reason why the nuclear option should be used to push through the Bush nominees. Time to clean up our courts from top to bottom.
Why should we trust Congress? There is very little they get right. I feel more assured with the sentencing decisions being in the hands of the juries and the judges.
Actually, the solution that I favor is more judicial discretion and less idiot judges.
I suspect that these guidelines were established in the first place to stop left wing bozos from giving child rapists probation because the judge believes this is a "lifestyle choice"
"Trust Congress to solve something? Anything? HAH!"
Well, let's be fair. They manage to solve their salary problems from time to time. Generally late at night.
We just need to get all conservative strict constructionist judges who actually have a brain.
Right!!!
When violent offenders get lenient sentences it makes my blood boil too. When non-violent offenders get longer sentences than violent offenders, I question the system.
That is ultimately the key. Common sense!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.