Posted on 12/12/2007 7:24:09 AM PST by Auntie Mame
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — The Supreme Court today restored federal judges to their traditional central role in criminal sentencing.
In two decisions, the court said federal district judges have broad discretion to impose what they think are reasonable sentences, even if federal guidelines call for different sentences.
One decision was particularly emphatic in saying judges are free to disagree with guidelines that call for much longer sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine than for crimes involving an equivalent amount of cocaine in powdered form.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This is going to tie up the federal courts for a spell. And that's a good thing!
Any reasons why? Did I miss the reasons for dissent in the article?
“In two decisions, the court said federal district judges have broad discretion to impose what they think are reasonable sentences, even if federal guidelines call for different sentences.”
If we don’t trust a judge to make this kind of call then they aren’t qualified to be judges anyway.
>> Good news from the Supreme Court.
Yeah, it’s going to take a while for the activist judges to free all the crack-heads and child molesters. The reason we have sentencing guidelines in the first place is because judges can’t be trusted to mete out “reasonable” sentences.
The reason why we have federal sentencing guidelines is because sentencing was wildly disproportionate between judges, so two similarly situated defendants could receive two completely different sentences based merely on the luck of whatever day of the week their case was handled.
If Congress wanted longer sentences, all it had to do is up the mandatory minimum, but it didn't want that. It wanted consistency.
I hear about 1 million appeals coming! Good thing, too. This “War on Drugs” has people in prison longer than rapists for mere possession of money.
I think someone reported 90,000 to 100,000 crack convictions might have to be reviewed. This is a very big number, considering the number of courts, judges, etc., available to hear the appeals.
Since the inferior courts are a creation of Congress, and they have the authority to make regulations, one expects Congress has legitimate input into court function.
Scalia concurred, which tells you something.
It seems Thomas dissented more for technical reasons, but you can read his dissent and the entire slip opinion here if you’ve a mind to: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-6330.pdf
Here’s Justice Alito’s dissent, taken from the above linked slip opinion. I’m not entirely clear what he’s saying here:
JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.
For the reasons explained in my dissent in Gall v. United States, ante, p. ___, I would hold that, under the remedial decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 258–265 (2005), a district judge is still required to give significant weight to the policy decisions embodied in the Guidelines. The Booker remedial decision, however, does not permit a court of appeals to treat the Guidelines’ policy decisions as binding. I would not draw a distinction between the Guideline at issue here and other Guidelines.
Accordingly, I would vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand for reconsideration.
Hopefully all that are incarcerated in Federal prisons. This whole differential in sentencing between crack v. powder cocaine is a product of the exteme ignorance on the part of our law makers. But don't worry, they'll still stay in jail a long, long, long time.
Well said!
Since the inferior courts are a creation of Congress, and they have the authority to make regulations, one expects Congress has legitimate input into court function.
The clause you quote gives Congress the power to stipulate which courts may have "original jurisdiction." It does not give Congress the power to negate the powers granted to the courts in the earlier clauses:
Article IIINote that Congress' authority to "ordain and establish" courts inferior to the Supreme Court resides in Section 1, and not in Section 2.Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
First of all, this decision has nothing to do with child molesters. Secondly, no crack-head is going to be freed. The disparity in the sentencing in crack and powder cocaine is the difference in 20 years in prison versus 30-40 years in prison. Frankly, in my view, if you haven't learned your lesson in 20 years, you're not going to learn it in 30-40.
The reason we have sentencing guidelines is so politicians can claim they are "tough on crime". If there are circumstances that mitigate the crime, don't you think they should be taken into account?
The fact that Alito and Thomas voted no - makes this a questionable decision.
“If we don’t trust a judge to make this kind of call then they aren’t qualified to be judges anyway.”
The REAL crux of this BAD decision in my view, is that it sets up JUDGES to decide over LAW passed by Congress.
Judges become KINGS...
The REASON that mandatory sentencing laws came into being in the first place was due to LIBERAL judges letting criminals off easy.
And while they're doing this, they'll hopefully be so busy they'll drop some of the trivial matters. Let's face it, some people need to be in jail, but some of the people the feds deprive of their freedom really don't belong in jail.
I ask you, respectfully: What does Scalia's concurrence say to you?
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.