Pubdate: Sat, 15 Jan 2005
Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT)
Copyright: 2005 The Salt Lake Tribune
Contact:  http://www.sltrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/383
Author: Pamela Manson, The Salt Lake Tribune
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/federal+sentencing

JUDGE WON'T SCRAP FEDERAL STANDARDS ON SENTENCING

A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled judges are no longer required
to follow federal sentencing guidelines, a jurist in Salt Lake City
announced he will give "heavy weight" to the standards in determining
punishment.

At a hearing Thursday, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said he will
deviate from the range suggested in the guidelines only in unusual
cases.

He then sentenced James Joseph Wilson, who had pleaded guilty to a
2003 armed robbery of a credit union, to 15 1/2 years behind bars, the
low end of the range.

Cassell said in a written opinion that the guidelines "are the only
way to create consistent sentencing as they are the only uniform
standard available to guide the hundreds of district judges around the
country."

Under the guidelines, which went into effect in 1987, a sentencing
range is established by the type of offense and the defendant's
criminal record.

The possible punishment is increased or decreased based on aggravating
factors, such as extreme cruelty, and mitigating circumstances, such
as remorse.

Judges were required to hand down tougher punishment once they agreed
aggravating factors existed.

Critics claimed this procedure was unconstitutional because longer
sentences were based on facts never proved at trial.

Cassell had declared the guidelines unconstitutional in July after an
earlier Supreme Court decision had put their validity in doubt. Since
then, he had been handing down two sentences - one using the
guidelines and an alternative - in case the high court eventually
upheld the system. In most cases, the sentences were identical.

His colleagues on the bench in Utah and federal judges around the
nation took a variety of approaches. Some continued to hand down
sentences within guideline ranges, while others gave jurors the
responsibility of determining whether any factors existed that would
affect the amount of punishment.

On Thursday, Cassell said his approach of hewing to the guidelines in
most cases could be the best way to implement congressional goals of
uniformity and just punishment.

He added federal lawmakers likely will be watching how judges react to
the Supreme Court ruling when deciding whether to pass new sentencing
laws.

"If that discretion is exercised responsibly, Congress may be inclined
to give judges greater flexibility under a new sentencing system,"
Cassell wrote. "On the other hand, if that discretion is abused by
sentences that thwart congressional objectives, Congress has ample
power to respond with mandatory minimum sentences and the like."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake