home

SCOTUS Decides Rita

The much anticipated decision in Rita v. U.S. was released this morning. Early reports (here and here) from Sentencing Law and Policy tell us that the decision upholds a presumption of reasonableness at the appellate level for sentences that fall within the federal sentencing guidelines.

The more interesting question is whether sentences that are less harsh than the guidelines suggest may be viewed with greater skepticism on appeal simply because they fall well outside the guidelines. (Sentences that greatly exceed the guidelines seem rarely to trouble appellate courts.) That question would have been addressed in the Claiborne case if Claiborne hadn't been killed. We'll have to wait until next term for an answer.

< Drug Convictions and Student Loans: Don't Ask, Don't Tell | On Iraq: Carl Levin's Cynical And Misleading Invocation of Abraham Lincoln >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    can change be good? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sumner on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    I am reminded that within the totalitarian state, the attitude is, "What, we haven't gotten you yet? Just because you're a law abider? Well, that's why we constantly change the laws and pass more laws."

    At least the Draconian federal "guidelines", post-Booker, aren't as mandatory. Yet in California, because the legislatures are largely controlled by the prison guard's union, with their insatiable appetite for new prisoners and more prisons, we would welcome a state Sentencing Commission.

    Many state lawmakers scoff at that though, claiming that they have already passed the laws and the governor has signed them, so the laws are "perfectly fine" as they are, (Draconian).

    So occasionally, maybe to "change the laws" isn't always only bad. (Assuming the makeup of a state Sentencing Commission wouldn't itself be Draconian)