SCOTUS tells Congress to fuck off - sentencing guidlines only "advisory"

[ChairOne]

More or less....

"Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court said judges are no longer bound by the federal criminal sentencing guidelines in a decision that may lead to shorter prison terms for drug traffickers and corporate-fraud defendants."

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

I'm of two minds on this.

(1) Congress telling courts how to sentence seems to be a clear separation of powers violation - at least heuristically.

in the other mind...

(2) I'm not up on the history of it, but I can easily imagine that sentencing guidelines got their start because of things like black folks routinely being sentenced more harshly than white folks (for the same crime, in the same context, blahblahblah).

But even tho I'm of two minds, given the current state of political affairs, I'm happy to have an independent judicial branch. And moreover, a judicial branch that willing to *assert* its independence.

[davidinalameda]

1. thank goodness

I have never agreed with this minimum sentence crap

one size doesn't not fit all--how stupid do you have to be to think otherwise

each case has it's own set of circumstances and too many people's lives have been ruined because judges couldn't use their own common sense to give them the sentences that were appropriate

[Maat]

2. This recently-graduated mom (with a Juris Doctor/law degree)..

believes that this is a good thing, because I've talked to too many federal magistrates/judges who wanted to give a reasonable sentences, but weren't able to. Under Ashcroft, if a judge/magistrate did not impose the full sentence, he was reported and, I believe, essentially pressured/harassed. In my humble opinion, this is BIG. It is a slapdown directed at the AG's office (a badly-needed one).

O.K., this means that we go back to human judgment. But the defendant will always be able to appeal an unreasonable sentence, and the alternative, as we have seen is worse.

[ChairOne]

4. You mean you got an MD and a JD?

Or that you got a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence?

Either way - booyah!

[Maat]

9. I should make it clear ...

I just have a J.D. (which is a law degree, and a doctorate). I get very frustrated people do not understand this. It is a doctorate in the vein of an M.D. They are not philosophy-related doctorates, but they are doctorates.

Other than that, I have a Master's in Psychology, and a B.S. in Business.

[ChairOne]

10. Hmmm.... now I'm confused....

I thought the JDs were *not* (the equivalent of) doctorates, because on can get Ph.Ds (and other equivalents) in law specifically, which is beyond the JD. That, despite the presence of the letter "D" in "JD".

For example:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/prospectives/academics/advanceddegrees.html

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degree.php

I would have thought the phrase "I have a doctorate in law" would have applied to the degrees on those webpages, rather than to the JD. How off am I?

All in all, I tend to consider a JD as a professional degree, on a par with MD, MBA, and whatever engineering degree acronyms look like.

It's all academic (!) though - Damn good job! lol

And while there are lots of types of Ph.Ds out there, but more-or-less only one of those types has anything to do with philosophy...

[Maat]

21. The way that it was explained to me ...

is that a J.D. is a professional degree, that is a doctorate, in the spirit of an M.D. Of course, both of these are doctorates. An MBA is just a Master's.

What it says on my graduation certificate is Juris Doctor granted. I guess in the Old Days, in Court, the lawyers would refer to each other as 'Doctor,' but that it sounded to pompous. Referring to each other as 'Counselor' then became popular.

Now, here is where it gets really confusing. After I get my J.D., I go for a Master's Degree in Law. It is not a Master's in the sense we typically think of a Master's. Then, you go on, typically, for what's called a Doctorate in Jurisdictional Science, or whatever. Few lawyers go past the J.D. (you get your bar card, and forget about the Heck).

Now, any PhD is a Doctorate in Philosophy, but that doesn't really have anything to do with philosophy, in one sense. So, I could get my PhD in psychology, and all that would mean is that I did a disertion, instead of earning a PsyD, which is another practical doctorate program.

Got that? Good. It is as clear as mud.

Thanks. I have no idea what I'm going to do with my life - except drive my husband, my daughter, and DUers crazy. Am studying for the CalBar fiasco right now. And on the story goes ... unless I get hit by the schoolbus while picking up my daughter ... which might happen with me. Sorry for that bad joke.

I knew that you and I were just chatting. Just looked at your sites. Yep. It is as I described it above. I just want EVERYONE to know that I suffered through 4 long years of a hell that is worse than any bootcamp I guarantee. You are a raving psychotic after you get out (just kidding - but not by much). So, 4 years for the Bachelor's, 2 years for the Masters in Psych., 4 years for law school, and I'll probably ... never mind.

Have a good day!

[Marnieworld]

11. no offense but...

why did you mention that you are a mom? How is this relevant to anything you wrote or the topic of the thread?

[ChairOne]

15. I'm figurin she wants some kudos....

... which is fine by me - A mom with 3 degrees deserves all the kudos I got, plus some more....

[patcox2]

17. When did relevance become mandatory?

I mean, really, I hope you didn't take it as some kind of slur on non-breeders. I am married to a mom with a professional degree and I admire her for being able to juggle both roles and she has a right to be proud of it too. And it probably isn't even "pride" or crowing; parenthood is a large part of who you are, when you are a parent.

And besides that, the sentencing guidelines were loudly and persistently fought by an organized group consisting of the parents of grateful dead concertgoers (mostly mothers) who had been sentenced to very long terms for minor drug offenses after the feds made a concerted effort to target dead concerts through the 1990s.. So, this group of moms made a difference on this issue and therefore there is some relevance, so there.

[ChairOne]

19. I hear ya! /eom

[Susang]

3. You might want to read about where sentencing guidelines came from

It came from wanting more jail time for offenders, not from inequities between black and white offenders. That, not surprisingly, hasn't changed, since the higher your economic and social status, the better the defense you can afford to present to the judge (and jury, if necessary).

Also, the sentencing minimums are strictest when it comes to drug related offenses, which are affecting a disproportionate amount of minorities, even though they really do not use drugs at a greater rate than whites do.

[ChairOne]

5. Good one!

So quite the opposite of my conjecture, the mandatory sentence stuff came about as a method of keeping those dirty thieving drug-dealing pimping whore niggers in jail longer...

Is this a 1/2-way decent history of the matter?

http://www.pixi.com/~itmc/Sentencing.html

[bowens43]

6. This is a good decision.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Guidelines should be just that -- guidelines.

Not hard and fast rules. There are always mitigating circumstances, previous offenses, age of defendent, etc., to consider that could alter the sentencing.

Mandatory minimums and three strike laws take the judgement out of being a judge.

Guidelines should suggest that a 20 year sentence for having cannibis seeds in your ashtray is excessive, and that 6 months at Club Fed for bilking investors of half a billion dollars is a bit light.

But the judgement should be in the hands of a qualified judge (which brings up a different issue altogether).

[McKenzie]

8. we had this debate in the UK a while ago

the Home Secretary is trying to impose political thinking (for which read the public's thirst for vengeance) on the judiciary.

In a democracy the rule of law must be a corollary to objective guidelines. Allowing public sentiment to dictate sentences is very dangerous imo and that view is shared by friends who are lawyers. Sentencing decisions should be left to those people qualified to interpret staute, legal precedent, proportionality and other matters that the lay person cannot deal with.

Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights puts the issues over in a succinct way. The key words are "impartial" and "prejudice" >>>

<snip>

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

<snip>

[dbt]

12. This smacks of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Certainly, the Pugs will not allow this vile Court to run roughshod over the will of the people!

:eyes:
dbt

[Jacobin]

13. Did Fat Tony dissent?

[fob]

14. Given your two minds, how often do you think drug "traffickers" will

see shorter sentences in relation to corporate-fraud defendants?

Sounds like a pre-emptive strike for bush*s enron buddies et al.

[patcox2]

16. Well, pull up a chair. This has been my pet issue for 17 years.

The history of it was that a guy wrote a boook that became quite popular, back in the 60s, on the issue of sentencing disparity, not between blacks and whites, but between different judges. I think it was called "Unequal Justice." Before there were guidelines,people convicted of the same crime often were sentenced to wildly different sentences, depending on the judge (the federal criminal laws generally set forth indeterminate sentence ranges, some federal laws allow the judge anything from probation to life in prison.)

This book became a cause celebre. Beleive it or not, Ted Kennedy co-sponsored the bill which created the sentencing commission and the guidelines with Strom Thurmond. The bill had bipartisan support; liberals tended to support it because of the racial disparity issue, they thought it would cure that. And conservatives supported it because they thought it would result in harsher sentences. History has proven that the conservatives got the best of the deal, it made sentences much harsher.

It was attacked on separation of powers grounds, as an excessive delegation of inherently legislative authority, and because the sentencing commission which drafted the guidelines had members of the judiciary on it, but the Supreme Court upheld it way back in 1988 or so.

One of my law professors was on the original sentencing commission. he was a punitive prick, quit because the guidelines weren't harsh enough for his liking. Good professor though.

Judges hate the guidelines. Dozens of federal judges have quit over them, disgusted at having to hand down sentences they felt were harsh and immoral. Senior judges (who have the power to limit what cases they will hear) refused to hear criminal cases anymore.

Thats the story of the guidelines. Thank god, good riddance to them. They did suck.

[Darknyte7]

20. I don't think "hate" is strong enough of a word...

Judges LOATH the federal sentencing guidelines. LOATH THEM!

[Darknyte7]

18. Boy! Rethugs in Congress won't be happy...

They'll start trying to find another way around this.

All the attorney's around here today are really suprised by this ruling.

[pinto]

22. The Chief Justice's recent remarks about an independent Judiciary,

including his slap at the term "activist judges", resonates in this ruling. One small step for maintaining the Constitutional equality in our government.

(aside - California judges are, as a body, also uncomfortable with the judicial constraints of the three strikes law as enacted here)

[Lexingtonian]

23. Yeah, it feels like Rehnquist's going a bit liberal

He likes the police state, but in the end he thinks the police state ends where hierocracy begins. (That's a $64 word for a government by judges, I'm so proud of myself....)

And for all the complaining about drug sentencing, I worked in a black ghetto in the late Eighties. It was black people with children who lived in slums who urged the Democrats in Congress to increase drug and weapon offense sentence in 1985/86 and got them to vote that way. People I spoke to then in that ghetto, black and white and Hispanic, were utterly unanimous about maximizing sentences for drug dealers, who were at the same time the people with the massive illegal firepower. Everyone there had some story of a major drug dealer getting busted and being back on the street within six months each time and each time then having his posse/gang kill people, especially (potential) witnesses and rivals. They were all sick of the unceasing intimidation. The cops told them that without witnesses coming forward or very large amounts of drugs there wasn't much of a way of jailing the major problem people for long under state and federal laws. They got told a lot of small fry- their own kids- would get jailed for far too long if long minimum sentences were made law, but at that point they were simply desperate about day to day life. The Crack Epidemic of '86-'88 did a lot to up crime rates at right about the time Congress passed the really harsh stuff. But it was these people who were key to this law passing, the people who were seeing their neighbors' kids fall into crack addiction and stealing their TV, people getting Tec-9s waved at them from street corners where gangs were dealing drugs and from cars if they were known to have called in the police, and whose niece was killed by a stray bullet ricochet because a gangbanger decided to spray a full clip down the street where the next gang was encroaching on their 'turf'.

It wasn't the racist crime hystericalness of white suburbia that convinced Congress. It wasn't 'Miami Vice' or the Medellin Cartel. It was utterly desperate people in Compton and Harlem and Atlanta demanding that something be done- brutal and stupid laws because the formally correct way to justice involved witnesses subsequently losing their lives over a few ounces of week or crack, and the spiral of death and crime not coming to a stop. These people felt some very large amount of power had to be brought to bear against the sense that their life and health, and everyone else's around them, was in jeopardy every friggin' hour of the day because of conscienceless brutes engaged in vile as well as random lethal violence.

[donheld]

24. IMHO this is really big news

I'm glad to see SCOTUS standing up for what is right.