Top Court: Sentencing Rules Not Mandatory (mandatory minimum drug laws)

[Willy Lee]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that federal judges no longer have to abide by the controversial 18-year-old sentencing guidelines.

The 5-4 ruling was a blow for the U.S. Justice Department, which had defended the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines that now apply to tens of thousands of criminal defendants each year. Thousands of cases nationwide have been on hold pending Wednesday's ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7306645

Sorry if this is a dupe.....

[progressiveBadger]

1. Yay!

Finally, a little good news.

[Cats Against Frist]

2. Back off, feds.

Shouldn't the Republicans be against federal guidelines for sentencing? They don't support federal guidelines for not indoctrinating my child and telling him that the world was created in six days.

[Willy Lee]

4. You'd think, wouldn't you?

Glad to see that one of Reagan's most noxious programs is finally being questioned.

[progressiveBadger]

11. No, because drug users are poor and must be sent to prison for life

Seriously, this was a big reason why our prison system is overflowing with drug users.
If anyone has more interest in this, read the first section of "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser.

[DrWeird]

3. Thank god.

Took them long enough.

[AlCzervik]

5. Wow, color me shocked! This is good news.

[quispquake]

6. That's great news...

But...but...how are the corporate jail systems going to make their profits now???

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Wow! But you know what I'm thinking?

Instead of getting tougher on crimes committed by white males, they opted to loosen the draconian War on Drugs laws.

[Caution]

9. You know what else?

That peopel associate tough with whatever the current standard is. The current standard was insane. Rather than well person A got 20 years for a single cocaine rock so person B should get 40 years for bilking investors how about person A gets 30 days and person B gets 2 years? Makes a bit more sense don't you think?

People love to throw around 10 years in prison without having any damned clue what being in prison is like and what that type of punishment does to a person and more to the point to that person's family.

Mandatory minimums were a very very bad thing, particularly when they are defined by some asshole republican hell-bent on looking "tough on crime" so as to ensure election from a bunch of morons who see the nightly news and get into a righteous frenzy about the exception rather than the rule.

[Willy Lee]

13. Here here.

I had a few friends sentenced under mandatory minumums for marijuana. They (the feds) weighed the whole damn plant, roots and all, and used that to calculate the amount of drug in possession. We're talking upstanding citizens, full time jobs, happy, peaceful, supplementing their income with pot. No, not selling to school kids, selling to their adult friends whom I trust can make that judgement on their own.

At any rate, it was heart wrenching to see these folks sentenced to 20 years (or more) in prison while violent offenders appealed and walked after a few months.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. No argument here. But repealing the WonD laws is only going halfway.

Now we have to focus on crimes that were previously overlooked. Once we even the playing field, you won't have conservative nutcases claiming that hispanics, latinos, & blacks have a criminal gene and that's why they're overrepresented in prison. And believe me, they did say that.

[Straight Shooter]

8. It's about time. What a useless law that was.

Now may we please have some retroactive justice for the people who are in prison under the harsh guidelines previously imposed?

[Caution]

10. Those who have nominal grounds to appeal sentences will be able to under

this ruling but yeh the whole system needs to go through a purge to free those who were unjustly (and this can now be said in a legal as well as moral sense) imprisoned for unbelievably unreasonable lengths of time.

This ruling is HUGE for them.

[TahitiNut]

12. Strange alignment on 5-4 decisions.

The ruling extends a June 2004 decision, Blakely v. Washington, which cut back a similar sentencing guideline system in Washington state.

The same five-justice majority from the Blakely decision declared the federal guidelines invalid today. That group consists of Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.

Ginsburg joined a separate majority -- with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor -- in declaring the guidelines advisory.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aILsdbDnvwpk&refer=us


However, Thomas' nose is still firmly lodged in Scalia's butt. He should change his name from 'Clarence' to 'Caboose.'

[ernstbass]

15. Fantastic news!

I have often wondered why our Dem politicians aren't more vocal about these senseless prison sentences. I sure would like to see our party take on this issue - well the whole drug law issue for that matter.

[happyslug]

16. Here is the Decision:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12jan20051100/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-104.pdf