By Deborah Elkins
The Daily Record Newswire
RICHMOND, VA — Federal judge aren’t as hard-hearted at sentencing as defendants might think. In fact, most favor the new range of discretion available since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Booker in 2005.
Many federal district judges believe the sentencing guidelines have reduced unwarranted disparities and increased certainty and fairness, according to a survey released in June by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
At least 67 percent of the 639 judges who responded to the survey strongly or somewhat agreed that those goals have been met “overall.”
Seventy-five percent of the judges favored the current system, when given a choice among the current system, the pre-guidelines system used before 1987, mandatory guidelines that were set aside in U.S. v. Booker, and a system of guidelines with broader sentencing ranges and fewer mandatory minimum sentences.
Only 3 percent thought the strict mandatory guidelines were a better system and only 8 percent would go back to the days before the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
That isn’t to say the judges like everything about the current system.
Sixty-percent thought the mandatory minimum sentences in general are too high, and none thought they are too low.
A majority thought the mandatory minimums were appropriate in all but three categories: marijuana, crack cocaine and receipt of child pornography.
Few thought the minimums are too low in any category.
Fifty-eight percent agreed that all sentencing decisions should be set by the commission independently of mandatory minimums.
The judges also indicated that probation, probation with community or home confinement and a split sentence of imprisonment and home or community confinement generally should be made available for offenses such as child pornography, marijuana trafficking and fraud and theft.
A strong majority of judges agreed or were neutral that the law should be amended to allow judges to reduce sentences below the mandatory minimum when a defendant cooperates, even without a motion by the prosecution.
The law now allows a reduction only when the prosecution asks for it.
Almost two-thirds of the judges agreed that they should be allowed to reduce a sentence below the mandatory minimum for reasons other than substantial assistance by the defendant.
The judges ranked the mandatory minimums and charging decisions by prosecutors as the largest factors contributing to sentencing disparities.
A majority of judges — 53 percent — disagreed that judge-specific sentencing data should be reported to promote sentencing transparency.
One Virginia federal judge does not shrink from scrutiny.
Chief U.S. District Judge James P. Jones of the Western District was in the minority on the issue of allowing judge-by-judge comparisons.
“I am happy for the public to know how I sentence people,” Jones said. “Sentencing is a tough job.”
More than two-thirds of the 942 judges who received a questionnaire responded to the survey, and the judges who heard the most criminal cases were the ones most likely to respond, the commission said.
The survey is available at www.ussc.gov.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
