FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, 2007
Contact: Monica Pratt Raffanel media@famm.org
Supreme Court affirms discretion in crack and other guideline cases
Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) applauds the Supreme Court’s rulings in two important sentencing decisions handed down today, Kimbrough v. United States and Gall v. United States.
“At a time when federal crack cocaine sentencing laws are being scrutinized by the public, the U.S. Sentencing Commission and Congress, today’s rulings upholding the courts’ right to exercise sentencing discretion are welcomed,” said Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of FAMM, a national organization working for fair and proportionate sentencing laws. “Over 15 years of study by the Sentencing Commission and other agencies have proven that crack cocaine sentences are racially biased and excessive for the low-level, nonviolent offenders to which they are applied.”
In a 7-2 ruling in Kimbrough v. United States, the United State Supreme Court decided that judges may consider the unfairness of the 100-to-1 ratio between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences and may impose a sentence below the crack guideline in cases where the guideline sentence is too severe. In Gall v. U.S., the Court, voting 7-2, decided that judges can impose sentences that are shorter than the applicable guideline range and need not justify them with “extraordinary circumstances.” Those sentences must be reviewed by appellate courts using a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
The Kimbrough decision comes on the eve of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s public meeting to vote on whether its recent amendment modestly lowering the crack sentencing guidelines should apply retroactively to 19,500 imprisoned crack offenders sentenced before November 1, 2007. The Court’s opinion followed the Commission’s reasoning that the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder ratio overstates the seriousness of crack offenses and disproportionately impacts blacks. Therefore, while courts must consider the guideline, they may avoid it when the outcome is too harsh.
FAMM’s general counsel, Mary Price, says, “The Kimbrough decision is a tremendous victory for all who believe that the crack and powder cocaine disparity is unjust. The Gall decision meanwhile breathes new life into an old mandate: that judges must impose punishment that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to do justice. Together, these decisions protect a judge’s power to look at an individual offender and give a sentence that fits the crime.”
“However, the real solution to unjust crack sentences lies in Congress. Despite the Court’s ruling, 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 – and why Congress must now act to address the mandatory minimum statutes that created the problem.”
Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), the leading sentencing reform organization in the nation with over 13,000 members, filed an amicus brief in Gall v. United States that urged the Court to affirm judicial discretion to impose sentences no greater than necessary to achieve the ends of justice. For more information, visit: http://www.famm.org/ or email media@famm.org.
Read the Kimbrough decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-6330.pdf
Read the Gall decision:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-7949.pdf