Pubdate: Mon, 24 Jan 2005
Source: Tennessean, The (TN)
Copyright: 2005 The Tennessean
Contact:  http://www.tennessean.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/447
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/federal+sentencing (Federal Sentencing)

RULING RETURNS SENSE TO FEDERAL SENTENCING

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent two-part decision on federal
sentencing guidelines will anger some congressional critics and
confuse many others. Nevertheless, the decision inserts a measure of
badly needed judgment into the system.

The court basically said that the guidelines should be advisory, not
rigid mandates.

In the first part of the ruling, a five-justice majority determined
that giving judges the power to make factual findings that increased
sentences beyond a jury's conclusion was an unconstitutional
abridgement of a defendant's right to trial by jury.

In the second part of the decision, a different five-justice majority
concluded that federal judges should use the guidelines as advisory
tools, not mandates.

Anything that hints of judicial discretion will drive some members of
Congress mad. Conservative critics in Congress have railed that
so-called "activist" federal judges will use their discretion to be
lenient with criminals. They want federal judges to be required to
force every sentencing decision into a cookie-cutter mold. Those
congressional critics are likely to come back with legislation to do
just that, prolonging the antagonism between the judiciary and the
legislative bodies of government.

But the courts will be equally busy as lawsuits pile up to take
advantage of the ruling. The latest numbers put 60,000 defendants
every year in federal court. And there are prisoners who haven't
exhausted their appeals.

The Supreme Court's rulings assure confusion for some time. Yet what
is truly indefensible is the status quo. Under the federal sentencing
guidelines, as well as those of some states, judges in the sentencing
phase were required to consider factors of the crime that were never
considered by a jury. The most basic problem, however, is that the
guidelines forced the judicial system to categorize crimes - with all
their variables - into rigid molds. Under that system, the
prosecutor's decision about the initial charges becomes all powerful.

The sentencing controversy isn't about getting judges and justices
right or about making Congress do better. It's about getting justice
right. The Supreme Court has simply found a better way to accomplish
that noble goal. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake