Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

Fitting sentences.

Article Excerpt
My object all sublime, I shall achieve in time. To let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime.

--The Mikado (1)

Last term, in Rita v. United States, the Supreme Court encouraged--but by no means ordered--district judges to impose sentences that fall within the federal sentencing guidelines when it upheld an appellate presumption that such sentences are valid. (2) This term, two Court decisions made it clear that district courts that hand out sentences below (even well below) the guidelines can expect to be upheld. (3) The Court seems to be moving closer to the Mikado's "sublime" goal of letting courts fit the punishment to the crime.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The first case, Gall v. United States, centered on the activities of Brian Gall. While he was a college student, he joined a conspiracy to distribute the drug Ecstasy (also called MDMA). He withdrew from the drug-selling enterprise seven months later, and there is no evidence that he engaged in any other illegal activities. He graduated from college and started a successful business. When he was questioned by federal agents three and a half years after the drug-dealing group disbanded, he admitted his earlier involvement. (4)

The pre-sentence report noted that Gall had truthfully given the government all the evidence he had but that the information was useless because there was nothing new in it. The report recommended a sentencing range of 30 to 37 months' imprisonment. The government argued in favor of that, noting that two of Call's coconspirators had received similar sentences, but also acknowledging that neither of them had voluntarily withdrawn from the conspiracy.

The judge sentenced Gall to probation for 36 months--no prison time. The judge filed a detailed sentencing memorandum explaining his reasons, citing the above...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!