Supreme court gives US sentencing commission the finger

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17105543

Supreme Court Gives Judges Sentencing Leeway

by Nina Totenberg


All Things Considered, December 10, 2007 · It used to be that judges had wide discretion in sentencing, but in 1984, Congress set up a commission to establish guidelines that would promote more uniformity in sentencing. For all practical purposes, the guidelines were binding. But two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the guidelines could only be advisory, otherwise they would be unconstitutional.

Since then, however, federal prosecutors, backed by the appellate courts, have continued efforts to limit trial judges' discretion, telling them that any significant deviation from the guidelines was not acceptable.

On Monday, by a 7-to-2 vote, the Supreme Court basically put an end to that practice, telling the lower courts that advisory means exactly what it says: that judges should consider the guidelines, but not be bound by them.



More at link
 
Umm the problem the supremes addressed was introduced in 86 with required sentencing guidelines for people caught dealing crack.

the war on drugs act ? in 86 ? sort of overrode the 84 fair sentencing thing on crack.

I started a thread on this topic,. but my title was not nearly as eloquent as yours is.
 
Vote was 7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting. Finally the court is starting to reign in the Congressional encroachment on judicial discretion. The case that actually spawned this was based on a judge sentencing a guy that pleaded to distribution of 50 grams of crack to 15 years when the guidelines say 19-25 years. The real enequity in the guide lines is that you can get as much time for 5 grams of crack as you can for 500 grams of powder.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm the problem the supremes addressed was introduced in 86 with required sentencing guidelines for people caught dealing crack.

I started a thread on this topic,. but my title was not nearly as eloquent as yours is.
Click to expand...

Republicans just want penalties weighted based on race...

1986....The Reagan Southern Strategy.....AGAIN

CK
 
just some more fun federal prosecution facts.

The Prosecution can come to court and announce a witness on the DAY OF TRIAL, no discovery, no pretrial interviews, no chance to prepare a cross examination and it is perfectly ok.

If your attorney files a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search that led to your arrest and the judge rules against you the judge can at the request of the prosecution "aggravate" your sentence. All for exersizing your constitutional right to challenge a search.

If the defendant testifies in his own defense and the jury convicts, the prosecutor will ask for a deviation upward from the guidelines because you testified and the jury didn't believe you so you must have obstructed justice. It is not an actual charge of obstruction, just an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines.

But they are all within the discretion of the judge so they are ok.
 
Socrtease said:
Vote was 7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting. Finally the court is starting to reign in the Congressional encroachment on judicial discretion. The case that actually spawned this was based on a judge sentencing a guy that pleaded to distribution of 50 grams of crack to 15 years when the guidelines say 19-25 years. The real enequity in the guide lines is that you can get as much time for 5 grams of crack as you can for 500 grams of powder.
Click to expand...

15 years for dealing? For Christ sake, there is no parole in federal prisons. That's ridiculously harsh. Even as it is.

25 years may as well be a life sentence.
 
Socrtease said:
just some more fun federal prosecution facts.

The Prosecution can come to court and announce a witness on the DAY OF TRIAL, no discovery, no pretrial interviews, no chance to prepare a cross examination and it is perfectly ok.

If your attorney files a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search that led to your arrest and the judge rules against you the judge can at the request of the prosecution "aggravate" your sentence. All for exersizing your constitutional right to challenge a search.

If the defendant testifies in his own defense and the jury convicts, the prosecutor will ask for a deviation upward from the guidelines because you testified and the jury didn't believe you so you must have obstructed justice. It is not an actual charge of obstruction, just an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines.

But they are all within the discretion of the judge so they are ok.
Click to expand...

That is effing bizarre.
 
Socrtease said:
just some more fun federal prosecution facts.

The Prosecution can come to court and announce a witness on the DAY OF TRIAL, no discovery, no pretrial interviews, no chance to prepare a cross examination and it is perfectly ok.

If your attorney files a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search that led to your arrest and the judge rules against you the judge can at the request of the prosecution "aggravate" your sentence. All for exersizing your constitutional right to challenge a search.

If the defendant testifies in his own defense and the jury convicts, the prosecutor will ask for a deviation upward from the guidelines because you testified and the jury didn't believe you so you must have obstructed justice. It is not an actual charge of obstruction, just an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines.

But they are all within the discretion of the judge so they are ok.
Click to expand...

Speaks to the high conviction rate for federal prosecuters .. who can also threaten your family if you don't cop out and give them their victory.
 
Socrtease said:
Vote was 7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting. Finally the court is starting to reign in the Congressional encroachment on judicial discretion. The case that actually spawned this was based on a judge sentencing a guy that pleaded to distribution of 50 grams of crack to 15 years when the guidelines say 19-25 years. The real enequity in the guide lines is that you can get as much time for 5 grams of crack as you can for 500 grams of powder.
Click to expand...

When is that going to change? The democratic nominees make some noise about it from time to time, but only when asked, usually in front of a black audience? How can that not be unconstitutional right on its face? We all know who is doing coke, the white guys on Wall street, half of them have no noses left. And we all know who is doing crack. It is just such an outrage.
 
Watermark said:
15 years for dealing? For Christ sake, there is no parole in federal prisons. That's ridiculously harsh. Even as it is.

25 years may as well be a life sentence.
Click to expand...

It's bullshit. Many violent sexual felons get out in five, and I can post records if anyone doubts it! What do i give a crap if someone is dealing coke or crack on my block. A violent sexual felon moves in, and I have a problem on my hands.
 
Fed courts are ran so differently that the more I find out about them, the more I feel they are truly a travesty of justice.
 
CanadianKid said:
Damocles just wants more minorities in jails....

He wants to roll back time to the 1960s!

Weed for everybody!

CK
Click to expand...
Decriminalizing drugs is only a first step. The idea that a Judge can give extra punishment for simply asking a review of a search is plain disgusting.
 
CanadianKid said:
Damocles just wants more minorities in jails....

He wants to roll back time to the 1960s!

Weed for everybody!

CK
Click to expand...
Damo didn't say that at all. What he was commenting on is the fact that the federal court is typically the trainstation for the express train to prison. I have several associates who are Federal Public Defenders. They can literally go more than a year without taking a single case to trial. There are just too many ways your client gets screwed in the Federal system. Shit there is a case that came out not long ago that says that Federal Agents can interview you without YOUR lawyer so long as the interview is not about the CURRENT case you are being represented in unless you invoke your rights. The Fed PD's in Albuquerque actually have a recording with two FBI agents asking their client about another crime, but then at the end they make small talk about the current case and ask the defendent "in passing" what sort of plan his attorney has to fight the case he is currently indicted for.

I could go on and on an on with the federal system. We have kid in our office that was in the car with a guy that told him AFTER he was driving down the road that there was 220 pounds of MJ in the car. Because he did not immediately demand to be let out of the car in the middle of the desert, the feds have charged him as a co-defendant. We are pleading him because they have offered a first tier plea which reduces it from 220 pounds to 90 pounds or less so that he does not do MORE than 26 months in federal prison. There is a question of whether the stop is good or not but we were told that if we challenged the stop and lose the US Attorney will pull the offer from the table and ask for an upward departure so our guy would be looking at more than 5 years.

Sorry the federal justice system makes me crazy!
 
Federal authorities have a 98% conviction rate in drug trafficking charges.

If you see a gangbanger or a shady looking type with 2% tattooed on the back of his neck, now you know what it means. It's considered a badge of honor to have evaded a federal trafficking charge.
 
Darla said:
It's bullshit. Many violent sexual felons get out in five, and I can post records if anyone doubts it! What do i give a crap if someone is dealing coke or crack on my block. A violent sexual felon moves in, and I have a problem on my hands.
Click to expand...

The war on drugs has truly changed what our notion of severe sentencing is in America. People are given life sentences for victimless crimes and violent crimes are just ignored. How can the supreme court continue to justify this as not cruel and unusual?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top