 |
in this issue - July 04 |
Brief History of MA Sentencing Guidelines
Massachusetts has been grappling with proposals to reform criminal
sentencing for the last decade, and the end is not in sight. The call
for reform began in the 1970s, as crime rates appeared to rise, and a
fearful public called for stiffer penalties. Judicial discretion, earned
"good time," and early release on parole became the focus of the public
scrutiny. In Massachusetts, specifically, judges had been allowed wide
discretion in sentencing, and often imposed so- called "Concord"
sentences, under which inmates often served only a fraction of their
stated term.
At the same time, some people became increasingly concerned about the
disparate nature of sentences based more on race and economic class than
on factors related to the crime. As acts are determined to be criminal
and punishable by the state, often the punishment reflected the temper
of the times; later reflection and comparison to similar criminal
activity often revealed a lack of fairness or imbalance. Systematic
guidelines began to seem the answer.
In the early 1990s, following a national trend, Massachusetts enacted
"truth in sentencing" laws, to tighten up judicial discretion. The act,
Chapter 432 of the Acts of 1993 (later codified as G.L. c. 211E) also
created the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. The Commission was
tasked with developing uniform guidelines for criminal sentencing. The
Commission delivered a proposed set of guidelines in 1996, but neither
that proposal nor any of its eventual competitors has ever been enacted.
|
| |
Greetings!
Patrice Brymner and Lloyd Fillion have done a tremendous amount
of work to synthesize and analyze information on sentencing
guidelines, so we have decided to produce a special edition of the
newsletter devoted soley to this topic. We hope you find it
informative and please don't hesistate to contact us with your
comments.
Thanks, Liz
|
| |
| |
| |
|
Multiple Sentencing Guidelines Bills at the State House |
| |
The Massachusetts legislature is currently considering four bills
that would provide for sentencing guidelines for the state of
Massachusetts. None of the bills would eliminate mandatory minimum
sentences, but each would significantly change the application of
current mandatory sentencing.
Patrice Brymner has written an extensive critique on the three
different sentencing guideline models currently under consideration
at the State House. Check out the website for more information.
Massachusetts Sentencing Guideline Summary
|
| |
|
Supreme Court Ruling Impacts MA Bills |
| |
Are the bills under consideration at the State House
unconstitutional? The Massachusetts proposals are nearly identical
to guidelines struck down in the State of Washington. Under
Washington's guidelines (enacted as part of the Sentencing Reform
Act of 1981) every person convicted of a felony is assigned a
"standard sentencing range," based on criminal history and the
seriousness of his crime. The guidelines, however, permit courts to
adjust a defendant's actual sentence upward or downward based on
additional aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Washington guidelines and the Massachusetts proposals differ
only in procedural requirements for resolving factual disputes about
aggravating circumstances. The Massachusetts proposals are looser,
and therefore "less" constitutional.
Brief Analysis of the Issue
|
| |
|
US Supreme Court Ruling: The Blakely Decision |
| |
It was the procedure for finding aggravating facts that the Supreme
Court invalidated in Blakely v. Washington. The Court, by a 5-4,
vote, held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that any
facts subjecting defendants to heightened punishment must be found
beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. The Court rejected a 2001
decision by the Washington Supreme Court holding that these rules
did not apply to Washington's sentencing guidelines. Justice Scalia
explained for the Court's majority that "When a judge inflicts
punishment that a jury's verdict alone does not allow, . . . the
judge exceeds his proper authority." Justices Breyer, O'Connor, and
Kennedy all filed separate dissenting opinions, and were joined by
Chief Justice Rehnquist
The Court's ruling may mean sweeping changes for several states.
In Washington alone, some 645 sentences may now be challenged.
Sixteen states have guidelines systems, eight of which operate like
Washington's. Several other states use non-guideline systems that
contain "aggravating fact" procedures that mirror Washington's and
that may be invalidated by the Court's ruling. One state, Kansas,
originally enacted a guideline system like Washington's but later
amended it to require that aggravating facts must be found beyond a
reasonable doubt by a jury.
Full Text of the Blakely Decision
|
| |
|
Federal Sentencing Guidelines Unconstitutional |
| |
Federal sentencing guidelines are also now in serious doubt. Long
despised by defense lawyers, federal guidelines were specifically
untouched by the Supreme Court ruling. However, on June 18, the
federal district court in Boston blasted the guidelines as
unconstitutional for the same reason the Court invalidated
Washington's guidelines.
In this advisory opinion, U.S. Chief District Judge William G.
Young minced no words in challenging the validity of federal
guidelines, charging that they are routinely manipulated, sometimes
illegally, by prosecutors and used to punish defendants who exercise
their right to trial by jury. Young wrote that "[t]he Department [of
Justice] today has the power - and the incentive - to ratchet
punishment up or down solely at its discretion," adding that the
Department uses its vast power to induce plea bargains and avoid
trials. He further slammed the Justice Department, writing that "[m]ost
of its methods are 'legal,' some are disfavored but winked at, one
is flat-out illegal," and "all are routine."
Full Text of Young Decision
|
| |
|
Federal Judge in Utah Also Finds Federal Guidelines
Unconstitutional |
| |
Paul G. Cassell of Federal District Court in Salt Lake City has
written the first extended judicial analysis of what the Supreme
Court's decision in the Blakely Case might mean for the federal
guidelines.
Unfortunately though, Judge Cassell predicts that Congress'
response will likely be to tighten fixed sentences "an outcome that
will protect neither the interests ofcriminal defendants nor,
paradoxically, the very right to a jury trial that Blakely sought to
protect.''
Full New York Times Article on Utah Decision
|
| |
|
