Comments on: Court eases cocaine sentencing

By: Tiffany Lassiter

Tiffany Lassiter — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:08:10 +0000

It needs to be taken into consideration whose being targeted here. We all have made mistakes in life some are not as severe as others. For a mans first time offense why make his family and children suffer for 5-10 years. The children suffer when they have to be raised without a father. As Americans we need to become more preventive and stop the drug cyle by educating our young people. Taking their fathers away for half of their childhood is not the answer.

By: Ramonda Simmons

Ramonda Simmons — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:37:07 +0000

My Fiance was just sentenced to life in prison, for possesion of Crack, the judge didnt want to give him that verdict but he was saying something about the some law passing, what law is he talking about and when is it suppose to pass. He did appeal yesterday.

By: Andy Lowry

Andy Lowry — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:04:12 +0000

Where was Stevens?

By: Kent Scheidegger

Kent Scheidegger — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:49:47 +0000

Peter,

As I understand Justice Thomas’s position, it is that the statute is unconstitutional only insofar as it permits the facts to be found by the trial judge, and that is all that needs to be stricken. If the facts are found by a jury or, as in this case, admitted by the defendant, then the sentencing statute and the guidelines promulgated under them are constitutional as applied to the case and can be enforced as written.

By: Peter Goldberger

Peter Goldberger — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:30:43 +0000

On first read, I'm having trouble understanding either of the dissents in Kimbrough. Justice Thomas withdraws his stare decisis acceptance of the Booker remedial decision, concluding that review of Rita, Gall and Kimbrough have now persuaded him that the appellate review standard is both unworkable and lacking in statutory foundation while exceeding creative judicial authority. From this, he concludes -- with the sole explanatin that it would be "better" -- that the Guidelines should be enforced as mandatory. But he doesn't say that he's changed his mind on the fundamental proposition that this key provision of the Sentencing Reform Act is unconstitutional. How could enforcing an unconstitutional statute be "better"? Wouldn't it follow from Thomas's newly reconsidered view that the statute must be stricken and let the chips fall where they may (presumably leaving federal sentencing entirely discretionary, but for the mandatory minimums, until Congress acts again)? Surely, the conclusion would not be the conclusion he reaches -- to affirm the Fourth Circuit's enforcement of that unconstitutional statute. I have a different and simply queston on the Alito dissent. In his view, the Fourth Circuit erred by treating the crack guideline as more mandatory than any other, although he (alone among the Justices) would require that the Guidelines generally receive more deference and weight than other other 3553(a) factors. The majority remands to the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of their opinion. Alito would also remand t othe Fourth for further consideration, albeit with different guidance. Why, then, is his opinion a "dissent"? Isn't he actually "concurring in the judgment"?