Sentencing Standards No Longer Mandatory

• Federal Judges May Deviate, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that federal judges are no longer bound by mandatory sentencing guidelines but need only consult them when they punish federal criminals. Under the ruling, federal judges will be free to decide for themselves whether defendants deserve sentences longer or shorter than the ranges prescribed by the guidelines, but their decisions will be subject to reversal if appeals courts find them unreasonable. The guidelines were established in the 1980s as part of a bipartisan effort to ensure that the same crime would receive about the same punishment nationwide. But since then, they have become the source of intense controversy in the federal courts, subject to criticism across the ideological spectrum. Conservatives and prosecutors have said that some judges have tried to coddle criminals by eluding the guidelines. Defense lawyers and some judges have said they have resulted in excessive sentences for some defendants. The divided outcome emerged from unusual twin majority opinions in United States v. Booker, No. 04-104, and United States v. Fanfan, No. 04-105. One group of five justices said the current administration of the guidelines violates defendants' right to a jury trial because judges impose sentences under them based on facts that a jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt. Another group of five justices explained why the guidelines must nevertheless continue to shape sentencing decisions even if judges are no longer legally bound to follow them. The modified system, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote on behalf of the five justices who supported it, will help "avoid excessive sentencing disparities while maintaining flexibility sufficient to individualize sentences where necessary." [more]

• Sentencing sanity [more]