cjjack
06-22-2004, 06:21 AM
Monday, June 21, 2004 · Last updated 5:41 p.m. PT
Judge: Federal sentencing unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
BOSTON -- In a scathing criticism of the system used to punish federal crimes, a judge on Monday called the government's sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, saying they unfairly limit the authority of judges.
In a series of drug cases, U.S. District Judge William Young said the guidelines put too much power in the hands of prosecutors and give judges too little discretion in sentencing.
Young's criticisms mirror those of many judges and defense attorneys who have complained for years about the sentencing guidelines, which became effective in 1987.
U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan was traveling and could not be reached. A spokesman said his office could not comment.
The guidelines, aimed at preventing disparities in sentencing, set up a grid system for sentencing defendants according to factors such as their criminal background, the seriousness of the crime, defendants' acceptance of responsibility and level of cooperation with authorities.
Many judges have expressed frustration that they have little ability to use their own judgment in sentencing and are instead bound by the categories established in the guidelines.
In his ruling, Young said he believes the sentences handed down to five defendants were too harsh and violated their constitutional right to due process. Young asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the sentences and send the cases back for new sentencing hearings.
It's unclear whether Young's decision will have an impact on other cases. David Yas, editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said he expects the decision to be appealed to a federal appeals court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yas said many judges have lamented the stringent nature of the guidelines, and some judges have refused to take criminal cases because they object so strenuously to the rules.
"What judges have perhaps most strongly detested has been exactly what Judge Young says here, and that is that the Department of Justice acts, in a manner of speaking, as both prosecutor and executioner," Yas said.
"There are cases they see where there are extenuating circumstances uncontemplated by the guidelines which make it just heart-wrenching to give certain defendants 10 years when any reasonable person would say that's too much," Yas said.
Judge: Federal sentencing unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
BOSTON -- In a scathing criticism of the system used to punish federal crimes, a judge on Monday called the government's sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, saying they unfairly limit the authority of judges.
In a series of drug cases, U.S. District Judge William Young said the guidelines put too much power in the hands of prosecutors and give judges too little discretion in sentencing.
Young's criticisms mirror those of many judges and defense attorneys who have complained for years about the sentencing guidelines, which became effective in 1987.
U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan was traveling and could not be reached. A spokesman said his office could not comment.
The guidelines, aimed at preventing disparities in sentencing, set up a grid system for sentencing defendants according to factors such as their criminal background, the seriousness of the crime, defendants' acceptance of responsibility and level of cooperation with authorities.
Many judges have expressed frustration that they have little ability to use their own judgment in sentencing and are instead bound by the categories established in the guidelines.
In his ruling, Young said he believes the sentences handed down to five defendants were too harsh and violated their constitutional right to due process. Young asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the sentences and send the cases back for new sentencing hearings.
It's unclear whether Young's decision will have an impact on other cases. David Yas, editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said he expects the decision to be appealed to a federal appeals court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yas said many judges have lamented the stringent nature of the guidelines, and some judges have refused to take criminal cases because they object so strenuously to the rules.
"What judges have perhaps most strongly detested has been exactly what Judge Young says here, and that is that the Department of Justice acts, in a manner of speaking, as both prosecutor and executioner," Yas said.
"There are cases they see where there are extenuating circumstances uncontemplated by the guidelines which make it just heart-wrenching to give certain defendants 10 years when any reasonable person would say that's too much," Yas said.