xxdr_zombiexx

Judge: Federal sentencing unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Monday, June 21, 2004

BOSTON -- In a scathing criticism of the system used to punish federal crimes, a judge on Monday called the government's sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, saying they unfairly limit the authority of judges.

In a series of drug cases, U.S. District Judge William Young said the guidelines put too much power in the hands of prosecutors and give judges too little discretion in sentencing.

Young's criticisms mirror those of many judges and defense attorneys who have complained for years about the sentencing guidelines, which became effective in 1987.

U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan was traveling and could not be reached. A spokesman said his office could not comment.

The guidelines, aimed at preventing disparities in sentencing, set up a grid system for sentencing defendants according to factors such as their criminal background, the seriousness of the crime, defendants' acceptance of responsibility and level of cooperation with authorities


Many judges have expressed frustration that they have little ability to use their own judgment in sentencing and are instead bound by the categories established in the guidelines.

In his ruling, Young said he believes the sentences handed down to five defendants were too harsh and violated their constitutional right to due process. Young asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the sentences and send the cases back for new sentencing hearings.

It's unclear whether Young's decision will have an impact on other cases. David Yas, editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said he expects the decision to be appealed to a federal appeals court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yas said many judges have lamented the stringent nature of the guidelines, and some judges have refused to take criminal cases because they object so strenuously to the rules.

"What judges have perhaps most strongly detested has been exactly what Judge Young says here, and that is that the Department of Justice acts, in a manner of speaking, as both prosecutor and executioner," Yas said.

"There are cases they see where there are extenuating circumstances uncontemplated by the guidelines which make it just heart-wrenching to give certain defendants 10 years when any reasonable person would say that's too much," Yas said.

*********

See also: The Rise And Fall Of Fourth Amendment Protections
by John Dean.

__________________
Torture Good, Healthcare Bad, Marijuana Evil.

There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

Dennis

This is a pretty significant ruling. Federal judges don't use the "U" word lightly. This will go to the Supreme Court.

PotShot

Go judicial branch!

__________________

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

Hydrosan

Now we have judges who might otherwise have been a little compassionate regarding the WOD refusing to take WOD cases this leaves what? the hard line judges who agree with the sentencing guidelines?

Can't these people see that the WOD is degrading the justice system too?

I sincerely hope they chase him up for a comment - if this were the UK, the press would have a field day with this one, OK, maybe in my dreams they would.

San