High court rejects Calif. sentencing law

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sentences

High court rejects Calif. sentencing law

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down California's sentencing law Monday, a decision that could mean shorter sentences for thousands of state prisoners.


The 6-3 ruling in Cunningham v. California effectively shaves four years off the 16-year sentence of a former police officer who was convicted of sexually abusing his son.

It's the latest in a series of high court rulings over the past seven years that limits judges' discretion in sentencing defendants. The court has held repeatedly that a judge may not increase a defendant's sentence based on factors that were not determined by a jury.

"This court has repeatedly held that, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by the jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence," Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.

[xchrom]

1. uh - oh this is gonna set some hair on fire.

on the other hand -- it will mean a temporary break on the bills the state correctional system is racking up.

[High Plains]

2. This is a good decision. Any state with a similar sentencing scheme...

...needs to change it. These are cases where judges enhance sentences based on facts that were never proven before a jury. The Supreme Court is saying if you want to enhance the sentence, that stuff has to be proven before a jury.

This will affect a lot of drug cases. Defendant pleads or is found guilty, then, at sentencing, the prosecutor says defendant is responsible for x amount of drugs, ratcheting up the sentence.

[kestrel91316]

4. Agreed. Good and fair decision.

[crikkett]

3. too bad they didn't knock down 'three strikes'

the biggest a reason we "have to" ship prisoners out of state.

when those prisoners are released, by the way, how do they get home?

[Wizard777]

5. I agree that's double jepordy and shiping prisoners out of state

is transportation. That is one of the complaints against King George (of England not the current one in DC) listed in the Declartion of Independence. We are also using Transportation internationally under King George Bush.

[SemperEadem]

6. the state law needs to accomodate a strict sentencing

it should not be up to an individual judge to determine it absent a jury decision. The jury has to adhere to the law: so should the judge. It's not for him to make the law, but to execute it. The legislature makes the law---write better laws. I agree with Ginsberg. This ain't a civil trial: it's a criminal trial and the jury as to decide beyond a reasonable doubt, not on preponderance of evidence. They have to decide on the facts of the case, not feelings.

Child abusers should be punished with life sentences, no chance for parole. That child is, in effect, in a prison for the rest of his/her life; the convicted perpetrator should be, too.

Write better laws.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. It's completely ridiculous that they even HAD to rule on this

There are specific sentencing guidelines for level of offense. the judge shouldn't be able to go off half-cocked, sentencing beyond guidelines at his own whim. jesus, are we a nation of laws, or fickle personality?