TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

High Court Restores Sanity To Sentencing

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: December 12, 2007

By definition, a judge's job is to hear a case and hand down the penalty, if one is merited. But Congress began eroding judicial discretion in 1986 with a law that mandated five years in prison for anyone caught selling as little as five grams of crack cocaine.

In two long-overdue rulings Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court returned the right of federal judges to use common sense.

Rather than a one-size-fits-all penalty in federal drug cases, the court said judges should be able to consider the circumstances.

In the crack cocaine case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was reasonable for a federal judge in Virginia to impose a lighter sentence because "the cocaine guidelines, like all other guidelines, are advisory only."

An even better argument against rigid sentencing guidelines was made by U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of Iowa in the case of a man convicted of selling illegal drugs. The man had stopped dealing drugs four years before he was charged with the crime. In the meantime, he'd finished college and started a legitimate business.

The sentencing guidelines demanded up to three years in prison, but Judge Pratt felt three years of probation was proper. He feared people would hold the justice system in contempt "if the law is viewed as merely a means to dispense harsh punishment without taking into account the real conduct and circumstances involved." But the government appealed Pratt's sentence and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit overturned him.

By striking down the two circuit court rulings, the Supreme Court brought sanity back to sentencing.

Punishments should fit the crime and judges should rule on a case-by-case basis.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT