|
|
 |
 |
 |
Let Judges Do Their Jobs
New York Times
June 24, 2003
By JOHN S. MARTIN Jr.
I have served as a federal judge for 13 years. Having
reached retirement age, I now have the option of continuing
to be a judge for the rest of my life, with a reduced
workload, or returning to private practice. Although I find
my work to be interesting and challenging, I have decided
to join the growing number of federal judges who retire to
join the private sector.
When I became a federal judge, I accepted the fact that I
would be paid much less than I could earn in private
practice; judges make less than second-year associates at
many law firms, and substantially less than a senior Major
League umpire. I believed I would be compensated by the
satisfaction of serving the public good - the
administration of justice. In recent years, however, this
sense has been replaced by the distress I feel at being
part of a sentencing system that is unnecessarily cruel and
rigid.
For most of our history, our system of justice operated on
the premise that justice in sentencing is best achieved by
having a sentence imposed by a judge who, fully informed
about the offense and the offender, has discretion to
impose a sentence within the statutory limits. Although
most judges and legal scholars recognize the need for
discretion in sentencing, Congress has continually tried to
limit it, initially through the adoption of
mandatory-minimum sentencing laws.
Congress's distrust of judicial discretion led to the
adoption in 1984 of the Sentencing Reform Act, which
created the United States Sentencing Commission. The
commission was created on the premise, not unreasonable,
that uniformity in sentencing nationwide could be promoted
if judges and other criminal law experts provided
guidelines for federal judges to follow in imposing
sentences. However, Congress has tried to micromanage the
work of the commission and has undermined its efforts to
provide judges with some discretion in sentencing or to
ameliorate excessively harsh terms.
For example, when an extensive study demonstrated that
there was no justification for treating crack cocaine as
100 times more dangerous than powdered cocaine, the ratio
adopted by Congress in fixing mandatory minimum sentences,
the commission proposed reducing the guideline ratios.
However, the proposal was withdrawn when Congressional
leaders made it clear that Congress would overrule it.
Congress's most recent assault on judicial independence is
found in amendments that were tacked onto the Amber Alert
bill, which President Bush signed into law on April 30.
These amendments are an effort to intimidate judges to
follow sentencing guidelines.
From the outset, the sentencing commission recognized the
need to avoid too rigid an application of the guideline
system and provided that judges would have the power to
adjust sentences when circumstances in an individual case
warranted. The recent amendments require the commission to
amend the guidelines to reduce such adjustments and require
that every one be reported to Congress. They also require
that departures by district judges be reviewed by the
appellate courts with little deference to the sentencing
judge.
Congress's disdain for the judiciary is further manifested
in a provision that changes the requirement that "at least
three" of the seven members of the sentencing commission be
federal judges to a restriction that "no more than" three
judges may serve on it. Apparently Congress believes
America's sentencing system will be jeopardized if more
than three members of the commission have actual experience
in imposing sentences.
Every sentence imposed affects a human life and, in most
cases, the lives of several innocent family members who
suffer as a result of a defendant's incarceration. For a
judge to be deprived of the ability to consider all of the
factors that go into formulating a just sentence is
completely at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has
been a hallmark of the American system of justice.
When I took my oath of office 13 years ago I never thought
that I would leave the federal bench. While I might have
stayed on despite the inadequate pay, I no longer want to
be part of our unjust criminal justice system.
John S. Martin Jr. is a federal district judge in
Manhattan.
|
|
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
1660 L St., NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
(202) 872-8600 • Fax (202) 872-8690 •
assist@nacdl.org
|
|