Defense Bar Discovers that Judicial Discretion Has Downsides
I spent a good chunk of my career at the Justice Department and my life afterwards speaking up for a sentencing system that more nearly resembles law than the “anything-goes” regimen that existed when I started my career. At that time, with limited exceptions, judges were free to sentence as they chose within any point in a very broad statutory range, pretty much with no questions asked. This led to scandalously wide and irrational disparity. In the Eighties, Congress noticed, and responded with one of its signal achievements, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The SRA established the Sentencing Commission and a system of mandatory sentencing guidelines, with departures allowed in exceptional cases, for good reason explained by the court on the record.
One of the main criticisms I encountered was that the SRA system was too rigid and took the human element out of sentencing. We should “let judges be judges,” or so I was told. I now see, however, that the adversaries of law-driven sentencing have had at least a modest change of heart.
