I was so amazed at John Ashcroft's comments this weekend (look at the link in yesterday's blog session) that I couldn't give up so quickly. I just had to share more. Propounding the value of the federal sentencing guidelines in treating fairly criminal defendants throughout the land, the Attorney General explained that "the amount of time a criminal spends in prison should depend on the severity of his crime and his criminal history, not the judge who sentences him." On its face, I couldn't disagree too strongly with that premise. However, Ashcroft went on, accusing "some" federal judges of exploiting "loopholes" in the guidelines that put criminals "back on the streets."
"Sentencing guidelines are not merely recommendations to federal judges; they are
the law, and they protect the public. Sentences, AG Ashcroft said, should be "fair, uniform and tough." (Note: Ashcroft enlisted his prosecutors to be fair, uniform, and tough as well.) Again, I won't quibble much with the concept that sentences in one part of the country should be similar (not necessarily identical) to sentences in another. But, query: If one assumes that a sentence is fair, does one need to inject that the sentence also be "tough?" Isn't uniformity and fairness sufficient in any sentencing scheme?
But the little lawman from Missouri wasn't through. He instructed his wards that they must "charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case except in limited, narrow circumstances." Of course, in fairness to the existing federal prosecutors who have survived the Thornburg memo and the Reno memo and now the Ashcroft memo, that has been their charge for quite a long time now. And, as before, Ashcroft's single solution to hard-nosed prosecution and Draconian penalties? Be a snitch. "Charged criminals who decide to cooperate can help us dismantle terrorist cells, disrupt drug networks and destroy organized crime syndicates."
It's all about terrorism, isn't it?
Once again, and interestingly, the federal judges (the U.S. Judicial Conference) have joined in seeking the repeal of the provisions of the PROTECT Act. This is the very act that Ashcroft is stumping in his recent remarks. Specifically, the Judicial Conference seeks the repeal of what is known as the Feeney Amendment, that portion of the law aimed at limiting judicial discretion to depart from Sentencing Guidelines. Citing the failure of Congress to consult either the Judiciary or U.S. Sentencing Commission, a news release issued by the Judicial Conference states that once the sentencing provisions of the PROTECT Act came to light, the Judicial Conference, the Chief Justice, and the Sentencing Commission expressed serious concerns. The Judges have responded with what is known as the JUDGES Act. Currently pending in both the House and Senate as H.R. 2213 and S. 1086, respectively, the proposed law would repeal many of the provisions of the PROTECT Act that limit judicial discretion. A link to the press release from the Judicial Conference about this matter follows.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/jc903.pdf
Maybe it's just me, but it is a little refreshing to have the federal judges take a position contrary to the government's chief prosecutor. Where all of this will lead, God only knows.
J
8:33:31 PM 
|
|
