Posted on 01/12/2005 5:03:09 PM PST by MissouriConservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a major criminal law decision, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court 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 now apply to more than 60,000 criminal defendants each year.
Thousands of cases nationwide have been on hold awaiting a ruling by the high court. The decision, which makes the guidelines advisory instead of mandatory, was seen as the most important criminal law decision of the court's term.
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. A judge alone cannot decide those facts.
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 federal judges in calculating the punishment and attempt to reduce wide disparities in sentences for the same crime.
The guidelines tell judges which factors can lead to a lighter sentence and which ones can result in a longer sentence.
In both cases before the Supreme Court a judge imposed greater sentences under the guidelines, based on the judge's determination of a fact that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.
Breyer said the U.S. Congress could act next.
CONGRESS CAN ACT NEXT
"Ours, of course, is not the last word: The ball now lies in Congress' court. The national legislature is equipped to devise and install, long-term, the sentencing system compatible with the Constitution that Congress judges best for the federal system of justice," he wrote.
Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said the ruling "has major implications to America's legal system and the way in which offenders are sentenced for crimes they commit."
"I intend 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," the Pennsylvania Republican said.
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 provide standards for appellate review.
He said the new standard for appellate review would be whether the sentence was "reasonable." Not every appeal will lead to a new sentencing hearing, Breyer 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.
"Congress has already considered, and unequivocally rejected, the regime that the court endorses today," Justice John Paul Stevens said.
This is merely Welfare for Lawyers. All at taxpayer expense.
Wonder what the penalty for perjury is.....
The SCOTUS has now ruled that the former "perception" - based on THEIR interpretation of the US Constitution - is not true. They are the final decision makers, congress and the people be damned. There is no appeal to a higher court!
Crime statistics have been alarming! They're dropping! This will never do, and the courts know that more people MUST be returned to the streets to keep the stats up!
Welcome to the impact of letting liberalism run the Supreme Court...this will open Pandora's proverbial box...a precursor to greasing up the Judiciary to be part of the Elect Hillary plan for 2008. Gotta cover all bases, you know.
Hopefully it will make the sentences fair. Justice should be fair.
You bettcha! Rehnquist has concerns about Americans' disregard of the law because of threats of judicial impeachments? He should have cause for concern since the Klintoon.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer in the opinion.
From your posts
...Scalia and Thomas...vote(d) in the majority.
Am I missing something? Doesn't the original story show that the 5 who make up the majority ruling in this case do NOT include Scalia no Thomas?
Seperation of Powers?
nevermind, I'm totally stupid here. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
The jurors said afterward, that if they had know what the judge was going to do, they would have found the defendants not guilty on all charges.
So, this ruling, in large part, puts restraints on judicial power, and places more power back in the hands of jurors, where it belongs.
"t" You're not "stupid" here at all;
what 90%(at least) of the aforementioned posters fail to realize is that (much like the "flat" Income tax which began as ONLY a 1% of Your gross income surcharge), compliments of a 1942 ruling compliments of the Bleeding heart FDR's Appointments a Case by the name of "Wickard Versus Filburn" opened the FLOODGATES of federal intrusion into formerly EXCLUSIVELY State Law. A "nexus"(or Link) to "InterState Commerce is critical for Most Federal Laws to be applicable. Until 1942 (Wickard) there were less than 300 total Federal Statutes. There are now over 85,000; Congress supplants this with an additional 2000-to 5000 every session now. It's completely insane. In 1982, along come the "sentencing guidelines", and in 2001 John Ashcroft States for the record "we're keeping a list of NAMES" (of JUDGES) who deviate from the guidelines. In Other Words, Congress has put 85000 new LAWS on the books, 95% of which carry FELONY catagories, virtually ALL are in the (former AND Current) domain of STATE Law, and Federal Judges, KNOWING that most of their convictions SHOULD have been dealt with on the Local level in the First Place are Tired of Congress (1 leg of the 3 tiered Government we supposedly have) DICTATING from the Legislative Branch to the Judicial Branch HOW they WILL do their Job. Along comes the Executive Branch (Via Ashcroft) FURTHER Intimidating these judges and the entire Judicial Branch. Obviously all the way to the Supremes, they're SICK Of it. We now have more FEDERALLY Convicted Felons than Local. "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" remember that one? Ignorance of over 85,000 of them? Think about it. You probably break a federal "Law" daily, You are just LUCKY, they aren't watching You. This wasn't penned by a paranoid, rather a Jeffersonian Libertarian, who seeks only the Government our Founding Fathers invisioned...
The down side to this ruling is that now Congress will come back (under the auspices of being "tough on crime") and REPLACE the abortion known as the "guidelines" and institute new sentencing legislation titled sentencing "requirements" or "mandates" instituting even MORE intrusive control over the judicial branch.
I guarantee it's in Arlin Spector's Dreams nightly as this is penned.........
There's a 10th Amendment to the Constitution for a REASON, and Murderers, Rapists, Child Pornographers and Molesters should be dealt with LOCALLY. 95% of ALL Federal "Crimes" should be dealt with on the local level. We'd have better prosecutions, fairer sentencings, and more time served for REAL Criminals, and 20% of the federal "budget" could be removed that's currently WASTED.
It's only "money" right?
Nope, it's Your, My, and OUR Freedom we're talkin' about.
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.