Author Topic: Fed. Mandatory Guideline Sentences Thrown Out (Read 367 times)

jEEZY · « **on:** January 12, 2005, 10:19:46 AM »

for those that care:

U.S. v. Booker, 2005 WL 50108 (U.S.)

Sup. Ct. ruled that the Fed. Sent. Guidelines are only advisory--Judges may depart now.

What does this mean? Judges & juries get to decide how long you go to jail not Congress.

actually after reading the full opinion I am dumbfounded on what the Court actually did.

Sandman · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2005, 10:35:13 AM »

Good. Mandatory sentencing laws are silly.

Delirium · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2005, 12:56:56 PM »

Its a good idea to get rid of Mandatory Sentencing and instead placing charge of the issue into the hands of the person judging the case.

However, it concerns me because some judges have a blatant agenda and this ruling will only encourage new laws to be placed in the Constitution rather than have them possibly over-ruled.

Mini D · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2005, 01:06:44 PM »

Does this apply to state level mandates too?

john9001 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2005, 01:08:40 PM »

judges cannot put news laws in the Constitution, only congress and the people can do that.

Sandman · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2005, 01:24:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
judges cannot put news laws in the Constitution, only congress and the people can do that.

What he said... Welcome to U.S. Government 101.

jEEZY · « **Reply #6 on:** January 12, 2005, 01:46:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
judges cannot put news laws in the Constitution, only congress and the people can do that.

Actually the Constitution can only be amended through Art. V . Statutes passed by Congress are subject to the Constitution, not added to it. As for "people" passing federal law. To date the U.S. does not have a national inititive, so technically the plebicite cannot enacct laws.

Quote

Mini D

Does this apply to state level mandates too?

Depends. The Court said, under the Sixth Amnd, that one can only be sentenced for a crime they either pled guilty to, or were convicted for "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the federal system a judge could "enhance" a sentence for conduct the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence, e.g. the criminal was the "ring leader." So if the state system allows for enhancements then yes it applies.

Note that Congress can still prescribe a range of punishment by statute that a Court must apply--maybe. The thing is that the Court and Congress have reallly thrown a monkey wrench into the fed. crim. system.

Shamus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 12, 2005, 02:03:22 PM »

What Sandman said. ie they are silly.

shamus

jEEZY · « **Reply #8 on:** January 12, 2005, 02:07:56 PM »

Don't misinterpret this--this ruling did not make minimum mandatory sentences unconstitutional--if fact it is likely to goad Congress inot mopre min. mandatory sent.

It only rule the guidlines were not mnadatory. Sorry for any confusion.

bunch · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2005, 02:46:50 AM »

Does this mean i can put a period afer a noun & be gramaticly correct now?

Delirium · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2005, 09:31:08 AM »

Exactly... do you think Congress will like be over ruled after a time?

Maybe I didn't explain myself enough.

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
judges cannot put news laws in the Constitution, only congress and the people can do that.

Sandman · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2005, 09:37:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bunch
Does this mean i can put a period afer a noun & be gramaticly correct now?

Isn't it correct to do so in some cases?

bunch · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2005, 03:44:52 PM »

OK.
I ignorant.
Verbs bad.