Posted on 08/15/2003 1:25:57 AM PDT by artemiss
Testifying before Congress in April, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy tried to explain why it's important for judges to have discretion in sentencing. He cited the case of "a young man raising marijuana in the woods. That makes him a distributor. He's got his dad's hunting rifle in the car -- he forgot about it and wanted to do target practice. That makes him armed. He's looking at 15 years. An 18-year-old doesn't know how long 15 years is."
Members of Congress apparently did not grasp Kennedy's point. The next day, almost all of them voted to impose new restrictions on sentencing discretion, making a system that Kennedy rightly called "harsh" and "in many cases unjust" even more draconian.
Under an amendment that was tacked onto a wildly popular law ostensibly aimed at preventing child abductions, judges have substantially less leeway to deviate from federal sentencing guidelines. The law makes it easier for prosecutors to challenge "downward departures" from the minimums indicated by the guidelines, instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to discourage such departures, and requires that Congress be kept apprised of judges who approve them.
Adding to the intimidation, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently issued a memo ordering federal prosecutors to notify the Justice Department of all downward departures not requested by the government. (Prosecutors approve a large majority of departures, often in exchange for information or testimony.) The Justice Department is expected to be much more aggressive in challenging sentences it considers too lenient, and the stricter review standard established by the new law means it is more likely to prevail.
Not surprisingly, liberal Democrats have complained about the shift in power from judges to prosecutors. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused Ashcroft of continuing an "ongoing attack on judicial independence" by requiring prosecutors "to participate in the establishment of a blacklist of judges who impose lesser sentences than those recommended by the guidelines."
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said: "John Ashcroft seems to think Washington, D.C., can better determine a fair sentence than a judge who heard the case or the prosecutor who tried it. The effort by DOJ to compile an 'enemies list' of judges it feels are too lenient is scary."
But familiar Ashcroft critics are not the only ones who are worried. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is not exactly known for soft-heartedness toward criminals, warned Congress in April that the new sentencing rules would "seriously impair the ability of the courts to impose just and responsible sentences." After the law passed, he said tracking the sentences of particular judges "could amount to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate judges in the performance of their judicial duties."
Or consider U.S. District Judge John S. Martin, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to the bench 13 years ago by George H.W. Bush. According to the Associated Press, "Martin has earned a reputation as a judge capable of stern sentences: In sentencing one violent gang member to life, Martin ordered the man held in solitary confinement and said he would have imposed death if he could."
In June, Martin announced that he was resigning from the bench because he could no longer participate in "a sentencing system that is unnecessarily cruel and rigid." He cited the current "effort to intimidate judges" as well as longstanding onerous punishments for drug offenders.
Judges like Martin are not simply angry over losing some of their prerogatives. "For a judge to be deprived of the ability to consider all of the factors that go into formulating a just sentence," he wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece, "is completely at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has been a hallmark of the American system of justice."
The sentencing guidelines, created under legislation that Congress passed in 1984, were supposed to prevent "unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct." But if they are not sufficiently flexible, they can also prevent warranted disparities, because it's impossible for the guidelines to take into account every factor that might help determine how much punishment a particular defendant deserves.
Unlike judges, the Sentencing Commission does not see individuals; it sees only broad classes of defendants. Members of Congress operate at an even higher level of abstraction, where no punishment is too severe because seeming tough on crime takes precedence over justice, which can only be dispensed one case at a time.
Could this have anything to do with where the "party's" support comes from? Note: the term party is used advisedly, and has two meanings, at least.
Pretty ironic. The article make a great case as to why elements of libertarian philosophy are critical to keeping the hounds of totalitarianism at bay.
You assume that everyone gets high the same way. With alcohol, the depth of intoxication is proportional to amount ingested. With pot, the intoxication is often different and unpredictable for many individuals. Pot can permanently alter the personality of an individual on just one use. These are parts of the reason for labeling pot as a hallucinogen and a controlled dangerous substance.
I am glad you cited the founders as not needing this "intrusion". These were deeply religious men - Christians. While being "human" they held the belief that Rights of men as not only unalienable but also sacred. Sacred because "we are endowed by our Creator". They thoroughly recognized that tyranny and destruction can come from any angle of government. Hey wait a minute. They downgraded alcohol and tobacco to a regulated level. How dare them!
Well said. The authoritarian 'conservatives' of FR seem to have no concept of the socalist/fascist roots of 'substance control'.
- As we see from VRW's post:
You assume that everyone gets high the same way. With alcohol, the depth of intoxication is proportional to amount ingested. With pot, the intoxication is often different and unpredictable for many individuals. Pot can permanently alter the personality of an individual on just one use.
You swallowed Big Bro's agit-prop line, -- hook & sinker..
These are parts of the reason for labeling pot as a hallucinogen and a controlled dangerous substance.
Name some others. - Two bits they're all based on an imagined 'need' for the socialistic control of society.
I am glad you cited the founders as not needing this "intrusion". These were deeply religious men - Christians. While being "human" they held the belief that Rights of men as not only unalienable but also sacred. Sacred because "we are endowed by our Creator". They thoroughly recognized that tyranny and destruction can come from any angle of government.
Yep, even from the religious 'angle'.
Hey wait a minute. They downgraded alcohol and tobacco to a regulated level. How dare them!
The ~public~ aspects of using anything can be regulated by reasonable men bounded by constitutional restraints. Try reading the document for intent.
I never did think much of people who hold themselves in high regards, oh by the way, if you researched those in your responce, you would know that you can throw Adams and Jefferson out of that group, they really don't fit. And if you don't know what I mean by that,you have spoken volumes of yourself.
You like people having the ability to buy any drug when they are twenty-one years old, like morphine, cocaine, barbituits(sp) or amphetamines? Wow, your concept of addiction is naive-grossly so. Your attitude towards drug use is utopian and irresponsible. It sounds like the familiar refrain of liberals who believe that we are all basically good, so let them alone and they will usually do good. In other words, good intentions trump consequences.
The "authoritarian conservatives", just like the founders believe that all people are inherently bad (this has to do with the Christian roots). And, that people who strive to be good will do good normally, but the tendency is to do bad. Addiction can visciously turn a person, that under normal circumstaces would be good, into a thief, a liar and even a murderer. It is horribly derelect of us to deny this reality and not act upon it accordingly. That is to classify these dangerous substances and to outlaw the possession thereof. If you have a problem with the classification, OK, make your case. If you have a problem with the punishment for possesion and distribution-fine; make your case. If you even have an issue with the due process portion of this process then let us hear it. But to scrap the whole process, you are inviting the disaster of unintended consequences
You swallowed Big Bro's agit-prop line, -- hook & sinker..
I ask you to take a casual survey yourself. Find an experienced health professional who has performed emergency care or substance abuse care about the short and long term effects of substance abuse - a real world, down to earth - informational interview to. Then find a legal professional who has worked on the legal end of things with addicts and ask them what the skinny is. One thin is for sure, when you come away from these interviews, you will have definite ammunition. You are in for a big-ham surprise if you do or you will refrain because you are afraid of the truth if you do not. Go ahead-make my day.
Last note: The ancient root word for "hashish" and the word "assasin" are the same. There is a reason for that. next time
Where oh where did you find these 'liberals'? Leave people alone? Liberals??? Never!
Liberals are the utmost advocates of paternalistic, nannying, big government intrusiveness. They don't want you to smoke, drink, etc... They want helmet laws, seatbelt laws, now they even want food laws.
The very essence of socialism is that people cannot care for themselves, and individuals owe others something, and must give up their rights and income for 'the greater good'. There is no 'leave people alone' in that equation.
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.