Post by Moses on Jan 13, 2005 5:36:12 GMT -5
January 13, 2005
REACTIONS
New Fight Over Controlling Punishments Is Widely Seen
By CARL HULSE and ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - Lawmakers and legal experts predicted on Wednesday that the Supreme Court decision returning discretion on sentencing to judges would renew the struggle between Congress and the judiciary for control over setting criminal punishment.....
Members of the House and Senate judiciary panels said that the decision, which they had been anticipating, was highly likely to set off a legislative fight over the extent to which Congress should be able to require judges to impose specific prison terms.
"As the court recognized, the ball is now in Congress's court," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who characterized himself as disappointed by the decision but not surprised. "We will need to examine our options carefully."
Conservatives, particularly in the House, have been highly critical of some federal judges for handing down sentences lighter than those called for in the guidelines and have moved to limit that discretion.
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee led the successful effort last year to require the United States Sentencing Commission to provide Congress with the names of federal judges who broke from the guidelines. Representative Tom Feeney, the Florida Republican who wrote that provision, called the court ruling an "egregious overreach."
"The Supreme Court's decision to place this extraordinary power to sentence a person solely in the hands of a single federal judge - who is accountable to no one - flies in the face of the clear will of Congress," Mr. Feeney said in a statement. [clearly overreaching the role of congress in individual justice decisions]
As they began to digest the decision, other lawmakers in both parties said they expected that hearings on sentencing guidelines would be quickly convened. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intended to "thoroughly review the Supreme Court's decision and work to establish a sentencing method that will be appropriately tough on career criminals, fair and consistent with constitutional requirements."
Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, a former federal prosecutor, called the opinion a disaster, saying, "The challenge will now be to determine what the core complaint of the five members of the court is and see if we can recreate the guidelines in a way that will meet the court's test." [Jeffy LOVES "discipline"]
Democrats urged caution.
"Congress should resist the urge to rush in with quick fixes that would only generate more uncertainty and litigation and do nothing to protect public safety," Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, "The last thing our criminal justice system needs is rash action by Congress to impose a comprehensive mandatory sentencing regime on federal judges."
Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat and former federal prosecutor who sits on the House panel, predicted that Republicans eager to limit the authority of judges in sentencing would seize on the decision.
"The professional judiciary haters in the Congress are going to have a lot of grist for the mill," said Mr. Schiff, who added that the decision was an opportunity for Congress to examine the guidelines "and see if we can come up with something better, not because we want to, but because we have to."
Judges, who have increasingly chafed under Congressional restrictions on showing leniency, praised the decision.
"I'm really elated, and I think most judges will be, too," Judge Jack B. Weinstein of Federal District Court in Brooklyn said. "It gives us the discretion to deal with individual cases without being unnecessarily harsh. This is now, if Congress leaves it, a marvelous system."
That glee may be short lived.
"I think they will come to regret it," Professor Bowman said of the decision. "It is the one outcome that is most likely to provoke a response from both the Department of Justice and Congress that will provide a result that most justices will dislike."
The Justice Department response on Wednesday was cautious.
"We are disappointed that the decision made the guidelines advisory in nature," Assistant Attorney General Christopher A. Wray said in a statement. "District courts are still required to consult the federal sentencing guidelines, and any sentence may be appealed by either defense counsel or prosecutors on the grounds that it is unreasonable. To the extent that the guidelines are now advisory, however, the risk increases that sentences across the country will become wildly inconsistent." [one size fits all-- that's the Republican mantra]
The statement suggests, legal scholars said, that federal prosecutors will wait to gauge the practical impact of the decision before asking Congress to act. Federal judges said they would continue to take the guidelines seriously.
"I personally will try to be completely faithful to the opinion," said Chief Judge William G. Young of Federal District Court in Boston. "Which means I will consider the advice of the guidelines and consider it seriously."
John S. Martin Jr., a federal judge in New York who resigned in 2003 over what he called "a sentencing system that is unnecessarily cruel and rigid," reacted with something like glee.
"This is an ideal sentencing system," Mr. Martin said, "with guidelines that are advisory, with appropriate review."
The decision will have enormous practical consequences no matter what Congress does. Some 60,000 defendants a year are sentenced in federal courts. For prisoners who have not exhausted appeals, prosecutors and defense lawyers can seek new sentencings.
"There will be a flood of litigation," Nancy J. King, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said. "It opens up a new can of worms."
Defense lawyers called the decision sound and urged Congress to move cautiously.
"For 20 years, federal courts have been forced to impose unjust, irrational sentences based on unproven allegations, speculative calculations and the worst kinds of hearsay," Barry Scheck, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said. "Congress should welcome this opportunity to create a fair and just federal sentencing system, not a quick fix."
