The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that federal judges are no longer
bound by mandatory sentencing guidelines but need only consult them
when they punish federal criminals. Under the ruling, federal judges
will be free to decide for themselves whether defendants deserve
sentences longer or shorter than the ranges prescribed by the
guidelines, but their decisions will be subject to reversal if appeals
courts find them unreasonable. The guidelines were established in the
1980s as part of a bipartisan effort to ensure that the same crime
would receive about the same punishment nationwide. But since then,
they have become the source of intense controversy in the federal
courts, subject to criticism across the ideological spectrum.
Conservatives and prosecutors have said that some judges have tried to
coddle criminals by eluding the guidelines. Defense lawyers and some
judges have said they have resulted in excessive sentences for some
defendants. The divided outcome emerged from unusual twin majority
opinions in United States v. Booker, No. 04-104, and United States v.
Fanfan, No. 04-105. One group of five justices said the current
administration of the guidelines violates defendants' right to a jury
trial because judges impose sentences under them based on facts that a
jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt. Another group of five
justices explained why the guidelines must nevertheless continue to
shape sentencing decisions even if judges are no longer legally bound
to follow them. The modified system, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote on
behalf of the five justices who supported it, will help "avoid
excessive sentencing disparities while maintaining flexibility
sufficient to individualize sentences where necessary." [more]