Judiciary Debate over Sentencing Guidelines

Some top officials with the Justice Department are asking Congress to enact legislation that would limit judge’s discretion in sentencing.  According to William Mercer, the principle associate deputy attorney general, the best way to do this is to create a “minimum guideline system.”  This system would make the bottom end of federal sentencing guidelines mandatory, while making the top end advisory.  This proposal would potentially harm those accused of crimes by limiting the ability of judges to apply common sense to federal sentencing.  

This is a potentially dangerous and arguably unnecessary proposal.  Today federal sentences are longer than ever.  There are more non-violent offenders behind bars today than before.  The numbers are shocking.  In cases where the majority of offenders would expect to receive probation and other alternatives to jail in the past, today nearly all of these offenders face incarceration.  A study released March 14, 2006 shows that in a majority of federal cases the “advisory” top-end guidelines are applied in sentencing.  Therefore, creating this “minimum guideline system” is not necessary, many argue.   

This “minimum sentencing system” is a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Booker in January 2005.  In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that federal sentencing should be discretionary, allowing judges some leeway in sentencing, rather than compulsory.  

Since this ruling, Congress members have adopted a wait-and-see approach to federal sentencing.  Now conservative members of the House want to further limit judge’s discretion in sentencing: their power to do their jobs and serve justice.  

The House Judiciary subcommittee’s top ranking democrat states that “What they are trying to go back to is the same problem Booker tried to cure: allowing judges to apply some common sense.”  

The new “minimum guidelines system” would do more harm than good, many argue.  It would take power away from judges to rule fairly and appropriately given the specific context of a criminal case.  It would create a compulsory blanket ruling in cases that are
unique, posing the threat of unfair and overly harsh penalties for many individuals convicted of a criminal offense.