A Judge Takes on Sentencing Guidelines

[Jefferson23]

* This judge is my definition of integrity and honor to the bench, even when the subject matter is beyond disgusting, he gets it.


By Scott Horton

In theory, federal sentencing guidelines are supposed to insure the observance of nationwide standards in sentencing persons convicted of serious crimes. In practice, they are a nightmare requiring absurdly harsh sanctions for petty offenses, bolstering the position of publicity-seeking prosecutors, and reducing the discretion of judges who understand that the administration of justice is a prime aspect of their role. This weekend, the New York Times profiled the most widely respected federal trial judge in New York, Jack Weinstein, and his crusade against sentencing guidelines applied in victimless crime cases. It’s an essential read.

In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography. Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.” …cross the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007103


The very good, Jack B.Weinstein:

Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: May 21, 2010



In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography.

snip* “I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?sq=Jack%20Weinstein&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

[Macoy]

1. There is a reason we have 3 branches of Government

“But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.”

Then change the law. Fact is, possession of child pornography is against the law. If the law in question is Constitutional, then the judge needs to rule based what the law is, not his personal option of what the law SHOULD be.




Macoy

[Jefferson23]

2. If you read the entire Op you would understand why he has taken on the position

he has. His ruling is on the length of time spent behind bars and the jury being kept in the dark on the sentence. He is not alone, judges have been concerned about mandatory sentencing for our alleged war on drugs too.


He also offers a substitute for lengthy jail time, which would be rehab and supervision, which is cost effective
and more humane, with a better chance of a more positive outcome. Many prisoners leave incarceration much worse than when they went in.

[Macoy]

3. We Need to Change Unjust Laws

I read the article, and his view point is valid. (I even agree with it lol) What I do not agree with is a judge ignoring the law because he does not agree with it. The article implies that the Judge threw out the man’s convictions not once but twice because he did not agree with the law.

I think mandatory sentences are “feel good” laws passed by politicians who want to show they are tough on crime. We need to change unjust laws, not just ignore the ones we don’t like. Especially if you are a Judge.

Now, if the Judge could come up with a reason the law is unconstitutional, then that would be another story. Think prison terms for crack vs. powder cocaine.




Macoy