11/10/06
Booker reasonableness under review by Supreme Court
By Mary Price and Jim Cho
The U.S. Supreme Court this winter will address one of the most contentious issues arising from the Court’s historic decision in U.S. v. Booker: whether a sentence within the guidelines is the “presumptively reasonable” sentence. In Booker, the Court held that the federal Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional because the guidelines provided that sentences be lengthened based on facts found by a judge alone. To remedy the situation and preserve the Guidelines, the Court made the Guidelines advisory. The Court directed judges to continue to consider and calculate a sentence using the Guidelines. But the courts were also instructed to consider the other factors in the federal statute that governs sentencing: 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include such things as the purposes of sentencing as well as the history and characteristics of the individual defendant and the nature and circumstances of the offense.
Click here to download FAMM's full analysis for more information. 