« Ind. Gov't. - Thoughts about making public records on the state website more accessible | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Prerogatives of legislators and their staffs »

Monday, March 14, 2005

Law - Star editorializes that "Judicial discretion takes another hit"

An editorial today in the Indianapolis Star is headlined "Judicial discretion takes another hit." Some quotes:

In a strange ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court recently hindered federal judges' ability to use police records and common sense in figuring out who should be jailed as career criminals.

Coming after an earlier ruling that federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional, the decision further strips judges of the ability to use their experience and wisdom in sentencing criminals. * * *

[Justice Sandra Day ] O'Connor added that the ruling "makes little sense as a practical matter" and "will substantially frustrate Congress' scheme for punishing repeat violent offenders who violate federal gun laws."

It also is one more regrettable step in removing the wisdom and experience of judges from the sentencing process.

Unfortunately the editorial never reveals the name of the decision -- Shepard v. U.S. (3/7/05), or the vote lineup in the 5-3 opinion:
Souter, J., delivered an opinion, which was for the Court except as to Part III. Stevens, Scalia, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and Thomas, J., joined except as to Part III. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined.

Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 14, 2005 07:47 AM
Posted to General Law Related