In the world of federal criminal law, a worse beast than even the Sentencing Guidelines are mandatory minimum sentences. Swept in for several drug and gun crimes several years ago as part of the "war on crime," mandatory minimums requires a judge to impose at least a certain sentence (subject to very very few exceptions) if some triggering event has been proven. For instance, if you deal with more than 5 grams of crack, you will get at least 5 years in prison (with much more possible, of course). Not only does that cut against the very ideal of judicial sentencing (the concept that each case is unique and deserves separate consideration), but it ignores the discretion that prosecutors possess to charge the triggering event and thus play games with the harsh punishment hanging over the head of the defendant.
So, with that background, it's disappointing that the House yesterday passed a so-called "anti-gang bill" that is riddled with new mandatory minimums. In addition, the DOJ gets more than $300 million dollars to pursue new convictions, a week after Congress refused to pony up any extra money for we FPDs to deal with the post-Booker fallout. I had hoped the Democrats would have stood up to this bill, but there are more important things than justice to worry about:
Rep. Maxine Waters of California introduced an amendment that would have struck the mandatory sentencing provisions from the bill, but she withdrew it in face of GOP opposition, saying she didn't want it to become a political issue.And they wonder why we hate Congress?
'I know there are people who are just salivating for this amendment to remain on the floor so they can catch Democrats voting for something they will use in their campaigns,' Waters said.
No comments:
Post a Comment