FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 1, 2007
Contact: media@famm.org
Court to decide whether judges can judge
Drug cases highlight need for Congress to address mandatory minimum sentencing laws
Washington, D.C.: The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday,
October 2 in two drug sentencing cases that will further clarify how much
discretion judges are allowed under the federal sentencing guidelines. In
Gall v. United States, the Court will decide under what circumstances a
sentence below the guideline range may be considered “reasonable.” In
Kimbrough v. United States, the Court will determine the degree of
discretion judges may exercise in crack cocaine cases.
Recent cases decided by the Supreme Court breathed new life into a
requirement in federal sentencing law that judges impose punishment that is
“sufficient but not greater than necessary” to achieve just punishment,
protect the public, deter wrongdoing and rehabilitate offenders. The
Supreme Court did so by transforming the sentencing guidelines from
mandatory rules into advice to judges in Booker v. United States.
Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), the leading sentencing reform
organization in the nation with over 13,000 members, has filed an amicus
brief in Gall v. United States that traces the history of this sensible
mandate to the courts and argues against reinstating the paint-by-number
view of sentencing that existed under mandatory guidelines.
The issue in the second case to be argued, Kimbrough v. United States,
concerns to what extent sentencing courts can consider the unwarranted
disparity inherent in the crack cocaine guidelines that treat 1 gram of
crack cocaine as the equivalent of 100 grams of powder cocaine.
The following may be attributed to FAMM vice president and general counsel,
Mary Price: “Whatever the Court decides, the real solution to unjust crack
sentences lies in Congress. Even if the Court permits judges to avoid
unjust crack sentences called for by the guidelines, many defendants will
still be sentenced under unjust mandatory minimum statutes. Congress made
a mistake by basing sentencing almost exclusively on one factor – drug
quantity. Judges should be permitted to sentence based on all facts about
the defendant and the offense, not just quantity. These cases show why
mandatory minimum sentencing laws are unwise, unnecessary, and unjust.”
Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) is a national non-partisan
nonprofit organization that promotes just sentencing policies. For more
information, visit: www.famm.org or contact media@famm.org.
Click here to download FAMM's amicus brief in Gall.