Judging the Judges
In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Monday, December 10, 2007 that federal court judges were not bound by federal court sentencing guidelines in cases involving drugs. In two cases, the Court held that trial judges should have the discretion to determine the appropriate sentence, within reason, given to defendants found guilty of drug-related crime and need only use the guidelines as a "guide" and not a written-in-stone formula.
In the wake of the crack epidemic of the 1980's, Congress organized a commission to create federal sentencing guidelines with the intent of making sentencing more uniform throughout the court system and imposed stricter and harsher sentences for convictions related to certain drugs above the minimal required sentence for such crimes. For example, under the guidelines, a sentence involving crack cocaine can be fifty to one hundred times greater than a sentence involving cocaine in powder form. For two decades, these guidelines have been strictly adhered to and considered to be binding upon the trial judges in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. However, two years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the guidelines could only be advisory or else risk being unconstitutional.
In the two cases that appeared before the Supreme Court, the trial judges, though imposing the required minimum sentences for each drug related crime, meted out sentences which were less than those stated in the guidelines. The Appellate Courts in both cases, overturned the trial judges sentencing based upon failure to adhere to the sentencing guidelines and finding that the trial judges had been too lenient. The Supreme Court, in reversing the Appellate Courts and reinstating the trial judges’ sentences, cited abuse of the Appellate Court’s discretion in trying to impose its own views of the appropriateness of the sentence rather than rely on the opinion of the trial judges who were more familiar with the facts. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
Should trial judges be granted the discretion necessary to make sentencing decisions such as these? Should the federal court sentencing guidelines (not the statutory minimum sentences) be discarded? Should drug crimes and crimes involving different types of drugs, be treated differently for sentencing purpose?
Some would argue that judges should be allowed to judge. Others say that without guidelines, judges will not fairly and properly mete out justice.
What do you think?
| 
