For the past thirty years, Congress has been attempting, through ill-conceived legislation, to rob Federal judges of sentencing discretion. Congressmen and senators decried sentencing disparities for similarly situated criminal defendants. While ostensibly arguing for a fairer system, these so-called “tough-on-crime” politicians were really targeting judicial empathy. Rarely, if ever, did these politicians anguish over a judge meting out too tough a sentence to some poor bastard. To straightjacket the judicial miscreants who refused to clobber the convicted, Congress passed Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Unfortunately for the accused, “Guidelines” is a misnomer; the guidelines were mandatory, allowing for almost no judicial input into the sentencing process. Under the “guidelines,” each crime began with a base score. To this base score, sentencing “enhancements” (additional factors - such as the defendant's criminal history, if any, position within the criminal enterprise, fraudulent conduct, etc.) were added, driving up the point total. The point total determined whether an individual received straight probation or a lengthy prison sentence. A defendant convicted of a crime with a base score of “6” (a probatable offense) could easily serve a prison sentence of more than twenty years because of sentencing enhancements.
The Guidelines did not strip the judiciary of its power; it shifted that power, and then some, to Federal prosecutors. Like twisted revelers at Christmas time, these Federal avengers pre-determined sentence length by carefully selecting the offense with which to charge the accused and then hanging on it every enhancement ornament they could find. With no power with which to restrain the prosecutors, Federal judges were forced to give out lengthy and often undeservedly harsh sentences to defendants. Wisdom, imagination, and decency were no longer needed or even desirable traits for those seeking the elevation to the Federal bench - with the Guidelines, any imbecile who could count on his fingers could competently serve as a Federal judge.
But today, after 18 years of suffocating insanity, the United States Supreme Court has finally ruled the Guidelines unconstitutional in the cases of United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan (See sidebar for links to decisions). The Guidelines will persist - but as guidelines only. Federal judges have recovered their discretion and prosecutors have been knocked back on their asses - where they belong. Defendants sentenced to unduly severe and unwarranted Federal prison terms under the Sentencing Guidelines may now challenge those sentences. The Booker and Fanfan decisions will rescue untold numbers of Federal prisoners from years, if not decades, of irrational, costly and counterproductive incarceration.
