The Supreme Court has invalidated sentencing guidelines for the federal and state courts because they allow a judges to consider evidence and issues that were never presented to the jury. With a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in United Statesv. Booker that any factor increasing a criminal sentence under the guidelines -- other than a prior conviction -- must be admitted by a defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing guidelines were developed to avoid disparate sentences for criminals convicted of similar crimes. In the federal system, and as in the Washington guidelines invalidated in the case Blakely v. Washingtonfrom last year, the prosecutor can ask the judge to increase a defendant’s sentence based on conduct that was never charged or presented – and even conduct for which the defendant was acquitted by the jury. It now falls to the Congress and state legislatures to revamp their sentencing procedures entirely.

The court’s decisions provide a rare opportunity to restore individual justice to what has become a “cookie cutter” system of justice. Watching a federal judge attempt to figure out the arcane charts for sentencing is like watching a game of baccarat. It is purely a mechanical process; turn over the cards and you win or lose – mostly lose. The guidelines are a ratchet that moves most cases in one direction: longer and longer prison terms. When mandatory minimum sentences are combined with the sentencing guidelines, sentences become a rote exercise reflecting neither the individual facts of the case nor the needs of the victims and community.

See Also:

U.S. Supreme Court Examines Sentencing Guidelines (Justice eReport; Volume 3, No. 29; December 1, 2004)

High court: Federal sentencing system wrongly applied (CNN)

Supreme Court Says Federal Sentencing Guidelines Not Mandatory (The Washington Post)