H.R. 4472; Federal legislative update
3/17/06
Many thanks to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) members who wrote their federal representatives last week in opposition to H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005, which contains many new mandatory minimum sentences.
Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, H.R. 4472 was passed by the House of Representatives on 3/16/2006 and has been referred to the Senate. We don't know how members of the House voted because the vote was done by "voice vote" and no one asked for a roll call. The Senate has not taken any action on the omnibus and does not have a comparable bill, although it is considering legislation on some of the same subjects. FAMM will keep you posted on developments on Senate consideration of H.R 4472 and other crime legislation that carries mandatory minimums or other harsh sentencing.
Now a new threat to sentencing justice is emerging from the sponsor of H.R. 4472. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is indicating he will call for mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 14 months ago in Booker that made the nearly 20-year-old mandatory guideline system into an advisory guideline system, thereby giving judges more freedom to decide for themselves what a fair sentence is.
Although the U.S. Sentencing Commission published a report this week, (click here to read more about the report) indicating that not much has changed in the federal sentencing system since Booker, Rep. Sensenbrenner believes that the advisory guidelines give judges too much discretion to hand out sentences below the guidelines. At a press conference on Wednesday, March 15, he said: "Unrestrained judicial discretion has ...jeopardized the basic precept of our federal court system that all defendants should be treated equally under the law." The Sentencing Commission's report actually found that federal defendants are getting slightly longer prison sentences since the Booker decision, and that judges are by and large following the sentencing guidelines, as they did before the Supreme Court's decision in January 2005. In fact, the Booker report found that in nearly nine of the cases cited, the judge sentenced defendants within the guideline range, or sentenced them below the range because the prosecutor asked the court to do so, or gave them a sentence harsher than the guideline sentence.
There is still lots to learn, including how the courts of appeals will treat other government appeals of below guideline sentences, and gaining a better understanding of why judges are departing below the guidelines in some cases. We have a lot to do to educate ourselves and Congress about why judicial discretion is important.
Is there a need for more legislation?
Rep. Sensenbrenner said at a news conference Wednesday that House Republicans are contemplating several pieces of legislation to rein in what he said were lenient judges, but it will be months before a proposal is drafted and introduced. The Department of Justice told the Congress at hearings on Thursday, March 16 that they want mandatory minimum guidelines. (Click here to read testimony of witnesses.) We think such a fix is unnecessary, ill-advised, and probably unconstitutional. Moreover, we believe the courts of appeals should be given a chance to address government concerns about below guideline sentences. There just has not been enough time to permit appeals to make their ways through the courts and make their effects felt on the system.
What's next?
FAMM will track these proposals and keep our membership aware of developments through e-alerts and here on our website. Thank you for supporting FAMM and sentencing reform.