DjTj Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Justices Say Sentencing Guidelines Are Advisory, Not Mandatory http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121000558.html?hpid=topnews The Supreme Court decided today that judges may impose lighter sentences for crack cocaine, adding its voice to a racially sensitive debate over federal guidelines that call for tougher penalties for crack than for powder cocaine. The crack cocaine decision was one of two today in which the justices, with identical seven-member majorities, reinforced their view that federal sentencing guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, and that judges may deviate from them so long as their decisions are reasonable. In the crack case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was reasonable for a federal judge in Virginia to impose a lower sentence than one prescribed by the guidelines because of his disagreement with the rule that imposed the same sentence for a crack dealer as for someone selling 100 times as much powder cocaine. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said the law did not allow the judge to make such a determination. (more at link) I think I generally agree with allowing judges discretion in their sentencing, but the constant chipping away at the Guidelines will definitely open up the courts to a lot more appeals, and I don't see this issue completely resolving itself anytime soon. It's interesting that the Court decided to take this particular case, with the controversial crack vs. cocaine issue front and center, to make this point. This decision could make a huge difference for crack users who might be sentenced to much more time before a conservative judge and much less time before a liberal judge ... I wonder if this will finally force Congress to fix the Guidelines. It's also interesting that Scalia concurred while Thomas and Alito dissented. I guess Scalia isn't really interested in fighting this battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 That's a relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 score one for Tyrone Biggums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 It's also interesting that Scalia concurred while Thomas and Alito dissented. So Scalia favors crack? Who knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turban Beardface Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Goes to get crack pipe out of storage...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Hooray???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 This is the best news I have heard all week. Make that month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 This is the best news I have heard all week. Make that month. having a bad month predicto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 This is twenty years too late.Guess those meth addicts were crowding the local jails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurm Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 It is a crying shame that this knee-jerk policy was implemented in the first place. I understand why they did it back in the 80's, there was violence on the streets on a massive scale never before seen. But it became outdated quickly. Although I am sure it was not intended, the law did have a racial component to it. Three cheers to the decision!:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 having a bad month predicto? Bad time of the year for liberuls who hate God and Santa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I understand why they did it back in the 80's, there was violence on the streets on a massive scale never before seen. So they create a law to fix the problem, it fixes the problem, and now we take it off the books? SWEEEETTTTT!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 So they create a law to fix the problem, it fixes the problem, and now we take it off the books? SWEEEETTTTT!!!!!!! Please show me the raft of credible legal scholars who think that indeterminate sentencing is the reason behind the drop in violent crime since the 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Please show me the raft of credible legal scholars who think that indeterminate sentencing is the reason behind the drop in violent crime since the 1980s. Please show me the raft of credible legal scholars who don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 The advisory vs mandatory thing with the guidelines had been ruled on a couple of years ago. I belive Booker vs US or Fanfan vs US. Maybe both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Please show me the raft of credible legal scholars who don't. Well, you were making the claim that this law did have this effect, so I would think the onus is on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurm Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 So they create a law to fix the problem, it fixes the problem, and now we take it off the books? SWEEEETTTTT!!!!!!! I had written a long reply to you about this, but its not worth it. If you can't see that this law was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the violence that was going on at the time, then we will have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Dexter and LT crack open the champagne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurm Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Dexter and LT crack open the champagne. Actually, last I heard Dexter was doing very well and being a very productive member of society. This is a cold-hearted thing to say about a man who is turning his life around. Especially a former beloved Redskin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 There never should have been any difference in the jail terms to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I had written a long reply to you about this, but its not worth it. If you can't see that this law was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the violence that was going on at the time, then we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for saving me the time it would have taken to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 "We decided they were more like . . . guidelines." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 ****ING AWESOME! More crackheads on the streets sooner. Way to go Idaho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 There is CLEARLY a racial component (deliberate or not) in the sentencing. Next step: remove the mandatory minimums. Then: End the War on America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Are there binding meth sentences? Because that is every bit of the epidemic for whites now that crack was for blacks in the late-1980s and early-1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.