close

Gonzales: Too many judges imposing lighter sentences

By Mark Sherman Associated Press Writer 3 min read

WASHINGTON (AP) – Too many criminals are getting light sentences because of a Supreme Court decision earlier this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday. He urged Congress to approve new punishment guidelines to make sure federal judges can’t be too lenient. Gonzales said there is evidence of growing disparity in jail terms and “a drift toward lesser sentences” since the court ruled in January that judges do not have to follow sentencing guidelines that have been in place for nearly two decades.

The overwhelming majority of sentences imposed since that decision – 86 percent – continue to fall within the range set out in the guidelines or were proposed by prosecutors to reward defendants’ cooperation and other factors. But there has been an increase in the percentage of shorter sentences imposed by judges who were exercising their newfound discretion, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Gonzales described similar child pornography cases in New York and New Jersey in which one defendant was sentenced to probation, while the other was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

In one case in South Carolina, a man pleaded guilty to federal weapons and drug-trafficking charges and would have faced up to 27 years in prison under the guidelines, Gonzales said in a speech to a meeting of the National Center for Victims of Crime.

“The judge sentenced him to only 10, offering no explanation,” he said, adding that the government is appealing the sentence.

Gonzales’ call to action stands in contrast to pleas for patience from a wide range of former law enforcement officials, academics and judges who say the new system has been in place only a few months.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, a Republican, and former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, a Democrat, are among those advocating increased flexibility in sentencing, but urging Congress not to rush to make changes because the system is not in crisis.

Frank Bowman, a sentencing expert at the University of Missouri law school, said he expects the variation will slowly increase over time. Bowman said the growth in shorter sentences so far has been modest; Gonzales called the trend troubling.

“A lot of your reaction depends on how you view that. Most folks involved in the system, other than DOJ, are a good deal more disposed to be tolerant of or even welcome a greater degree of deviation from the guidelines,” said Bowman, who is working with the former Justice officials on the Constitution Project’s sentencing initiative.

Congress created the guidelines in the 1980s mainly to reduce disparities between judges. But the high court said making the guidelines mandatory violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because they call for judges to make factual decisions that could add to prison time, such as the amount of drugs involved in a crime.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, the guidelines now are only advisory. As a result, federal judges are free to sentence convicted criminals as they see fit, but they may be subject to reversal if appeals courts find them “unreasonable.”

Making the bottom range of the guidelines mandatory, but leaving the guidelines’ upper limit advisory would resolve the Supreme Court’s concern, Gonzales said.

Legislation in Congress would set mandatory minimums for many types of crime, because of concern over leniency. Gonzales did not endorse a specific piece of legislation Tuesday.

On the Net:

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov

U.S. Sentencing Commission: http://www.ussc.gov

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $4.79/week.

Subscribe Today