Just a Suggestion

Links galore to Booker/Fanfan news: SCOTUS broke the story on the decision here, Talk Left summarizes it here, and How Appealing links to the .pdf of the full 124-page decision. According to what I've read so far, the US Supreme Court decided that a) the federal sentencing guidelines are NOT mandatory, but must be taken into consideration by the judge as a guide to congressional intent; and b) juries, not judges, should generally determine the factual basis for sentencing enhancements (such as whether the defendant used a weapon). That will solve a lot of situations such as this one I blogged on in November:

FACTS: Defendant dealt marijuana, made three controlled buys of $350 apiece. In some of those he carried, but didn't threaten with or use, a firearm. When they searched his and his girlfriend's residences, there were other firearms found. The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines: to put him away for 55 years or so. First real offense. No discretion. The judge was particularly affronted by the fact that a child rapist or pornographer, or someone who actually shot somebody during a single drug buy, would get a lighter sentence (See Table 1 in the decision).

As I indicated in an earlier post, even with a pro-prosecution slant, I feel the federal sentencing guidelines were getting way out of control, as evidenced by this statement:

Years ago, Chief Judge James L. Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and I, as chief judge of the Eighth Circuit, sponsored a sentencing institute. At that institute, I asked the chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission why an 18-year-old who had received some drugs by mail for a friend should face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, under the commission's federal sentencing guidelines set by the commission. The chairman responded that because this teenager would be in prison during his 20's, the age when the likelihood of recidivism is greatest, the sentence would cut down on re-arrests."

Okay, and capital punishment would cut recidivism to zero but it's still a really bad idea.



NOTE:

Forgot to make mention of a couple of facts: 1) That one of the contributing bloggers on Talk Left represented the defendant in Booker, as seen on that site's link; and 2)Justice Stevens actually cites to a DOJ memo on Professor Berman's blog in footnote 4 on page 7 of his partial dissent (page 63 overall, at least how my Adobe reads it). Blogs getting cited in US Supreme Court opinions. Cool. Milbarge pointed out that link.