Some Question the Guidelines for Sentencing

A few recent cases have refocused the debate on the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 that sets forth guidelines intended to ensure uniformity in sentencing across the federal judicial system.

Under the guidelines, federal judges must consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances in determining sentences.

Critics say judges have become little more than clerks. However, the guidelines were created to establish some consistency.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld light sentences for two of the police officers found guilty of violating the civil rights of Rodney King. And although the case of Pacoima crack dealer turned community activist Bobbie Marshall was one of a judge attempting to ignore a plea bargain, that case still raised questions of a judge’s independence.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor at the USC Law Center:

“I would say that if there is anything that judges seem to agree upon it is that the sentencing guidelines are unduly rigid in many cases. There’s an old saying that the punishment should fit the crime, and the problem with the sentencing guidelines is that they don’t give judicial discretion . . . I think they take too much away from the judges . . . One place the system has been unjust has been in cocaine sentencing, where the sentencing for crack cocaine is considerably tougher than it is for cocaine powder.”

U.S. Rep. Jim Rogan (R-Pasadena), a former state legislator and municipal judge:

“I don’t know if the system’s broken, so I’m not sure it needs to be fixed. I do know some judges are especially displeased with [the guidelines] . . . I don’t have the benefit of having worked on the federal side of the courts . . . This really begs a different question: Is it really the proper role of a judge . . . who once appointed, is appointed for life . . . to step in and overturn what is the constitutionally mandated role for the Legislature to make law.”

Robert Pugsley, professor at Southwestern University School of Law:

“[Sentencing guidelines were] a good idea, but it became too rigid and too much of a blueprint . . . A goal in criminal punishment is to punish the crime and the criminal. And for that purpose we need uniform standards, but no rigid blueprint. The ideal is a structured framework that permits an experienced judge to consider individual [circumstances].”

Maria Stratton, federal public defender for the California central district:

“I think [sentencing guidelines] should be abolished because there’s no point in having a judge if you don’t let them exercise their judgment in the exceptional case . . . Those are precisely the cases where you would want a jurist to say, ‘This is different and in my opinion, this is what should happen to the person.’ . . . [The system creates] consistency, not necessarily fairness . . . There was a concern that people in different regions and areas of the country were being treated differently and in the same courthouse were receiving different sentences . . . I think that’s illogical . . . Values are different in different parts of the country . . . If your goal is to rein in the judge, there are other ways to achieve that. You can put pressure on the legislators to appoint the kinds of judges that you want. To appoint judges and then to tie their hands seems very overreaching and certainly not fair to the judges.”