My Two Cents regarding "Mandatory Minimum" Sentencing (NOT SPEAKING ON HUS/AWAX SHIT; BUT I CAN'T KEEP READING WRONG INFO ON THE SICCNESS WITHOUT SHARING)
United States v. Booker (2005)
• US Supreme Court says Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory and binding on federal courts. Made guideline advisory instead of mandatory.
• Guidelines are now purely advisory to be considered by federal district judges in sentencing defendants
• Why? Violates 6th amendment right to trial by jury. Juries not the judges must find facts relevant to sentencing
• judges were relying facts neither admitted by defendant nor found by jury in sentencing
• to what extent are the guidelines inapplicable:
o Guidelines mandatory upon sentencing courts was unconstitutional
o Stand of review of appeal – “reasonableness” standard
• Theme: we use to treat judges as impartial beings, by robbing them of discretion and made them fact finders. By restoring the authority to sentence, we are going back to the way the things use to be historically.
• Note: in the years since booker, studies show that the judges have not really changed in their sentencing. 11% variation.
• Note: guidelines unintentionally gave more power to prosecutor, by giving them more discretion on what to charge. Judge was then narrowed by the what the prosecutor wanted to charge