The current Congress seems hell-bent on curbing judicial freethinking in the area of sentencing. For instance, though federal judges traditionally work independently, except in dramatic cases that require impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee is preparing to investigate one federal judge in Minnesota (a Reagan appointee, oddly enough) simply because it believes the judge is too lenient on convicted drug offenders.
Such efforts to legislate or intimidate the judiciary into more closely following a congressional script for criminal sentencing will have baleful consequences. Many well-meaning judges already deeply resent being forced by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and Congressional mandatory minimums to impose sentences they consider unjust.
...allowing for some measure of sentencing discretion is essential to preserving the quality of our district court judges. A system that renders judges utterly helpless to correct what they see as palpable and avoidable injustices is bound to failure.
We reported on the bill at length
here. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (
NACDL) issued this strongly worded
press release today:
Sneak amendments to Amber Alert bill would strip discretion from federal judges
Washington D.C.—Criminal defense lawyers, judges, and civil rights groups want the U.S. Senate to knock out last-minute House amendments to the Amber Alert bill that would strip federal judges of the last remaining vestiges of discretion in sentencing federal offenders.
The amendments, which would potentially affect all federal defendants, are completely unrelated to the underlying Amber Alert legislation.
"The [Federal Sentencing] Guidelines are already a straightjacket for judges," said Lawrence Goldman, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "They have already severely limited judges' ability to make individualized sentences."
The amendments to the House version of the bill pending in Congress would greatly hamper the ability of judges to depart downward from the recommended guideline sentence, unless the prosecution agreed. Departures for military service and extraordinary family responsibilities, for instance, would be prohibited.
Several civil rights groups signed on to an NACDL letter to House members opposing the provision the evening before the vote.
"These amendments leave the outcome of the case in the hands of one of the litigants, the prosecutor, rather than letting judges serve as judges," said Goldman, a criminal defense lawyer in New York City. "This House sneak attack should be rejected by the Senate. Any amendments to the Guidelines should first be considered by the independent Sentencing Guidelines Commission which Congress itself established. "
Read the letter NACDL sent to Congress as well as
this section by section analysis of the bill. Then send one of your own.
Here's one written by the Federal Public Defender of Western Washington.
