By Harlan J. Protass - Slate Magazine
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, July 8, 2007
Story appeared in FORUM section, Page E4
~snip~ The Bush administration, however, has consistently maintained that at sentencing, judges should be precluded from thinking about precisely the sort of individual circumstances the president raised in lending a hand to Libby.
Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proposed legislation that would prevent judges from relying on anything outside the federal sentencing guidelines as the basis for a sentence more lenient than the range that the guidelines provide for. Only the rarest of exceptions to this rule would be permitted.
That proposed legislation would effectively reverse the 2005 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, which authorized sentencing judges to consider factors such as a defendant's life story and the nature and circumstances of his or her offense. Gonzales' bill would also make the federal guidelines, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional, essentially mandatory again -- again leaving judges less leeway for showing mercy. ~snip~
Pardons and sentence commutations are by definition tickets that are good for only one ride, special treatment for special defendants. And yet, one can't help asking, what of all those fears about disparity? In the weeks and months to come, defense attorneys across the country won't be able to resist tapping away at their keyboards, arguing that their clients' individual circumstances call for sentencing breaks, just like Libby's did. It probably won't work. But the administration's inconsistency is so glaring -- and so perfectly illustrates the flaw of harsh and mandatory sentencing regimes -- that to point it out to judges will be irresistible.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/260493.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
