CHANGE IN FEDERAL SENTENCING

Challenge Is To Be Flexible, Yet Fair

Federal sentencing guidelines put into place 20 years ago drew criticism
for giving judges no latitude in punishing criminals in the U.S. court
system. The guidelines were created in an effort to make sentencing fairer
- - to see that the same offenses resulted in similar sentences across the
country.

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled those guidelines should be used as
guides but not governing principles when it comes to sentences. The
guidelines are advisory now, and judges have regained flexibility in
sentencing those convicted in their courts.

Last June, the court struck down Washington's state sentencing guidelines,
ruling them a violation of the Sixth Amendment because judges had to
consider factors in sentencing that were not presented to a jury.

The decision on federal guidelines echoes that logic, something some
federal judges had expected. Some sentencings were delayed in light of the
potential change in how the sentencing guidelines should be used.

It can be expected that hundreds of federal inmates will ask now for new
sentencing hearings. Some experts predict defendants who've not exhausted
appeals will be filing petitions to challenge their sentences in hopes of
getting their terms shortened.

And some of those experts predict the ruling will lead to a more
complicated sentencing procedure in future cases, with more hearings and
longer sentencing procedures.

Whether the change will achieve the original goal of the sentencing
guidelines - to make sentences more uniform nationwide - remains to be seen.

Judges still have to "consult" the guidelines in their sentencing
decisions, then appeals courts will review the sentencing decisions and how
the guidelines were used for "reasonableness."

In theory, it should work. If judges use the guidelines in the cases before
them, while judiciously exercising their newly given freedom to vary from
them where circumstances dictate, the ruling could result in more fairness
in the federal system.

It will all depend on how judges use this newfound flexibility.