Reading Between The Sentences

摘要

For some 20 years judges have pretty much known what they were doing. If the job wasn't always easy, the rules— at least when it came to sentencing—were reasonably clear. But thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, that clarity has vanished, leaving judges and prosecutors stumbling in confusion and the fate of thousands of convicts and defendants up for grabs. It all started in Washington state when a troubled husband kidnapped his long-suffering wife. Ralph Howard Blakely apparently hoped to persuade her (with the help of a knife and a shotgun) to drop divorce proceedings. Incensed at Blakely's behavior, a judge sentenced him to considerably more time than Blakely had plea-bargained for—taking advantage of a Washington law allowing an "exceptional sentence" for "substantial and compelling reasons." Blakely, of course, objected. And the Supreme Court took his side. The June 24 ruling rejected the notion that (as routinely happens) a lone judge could find the defendant guilty of additional offenses not necessarily charged or proved in court, and sentence him accordingly. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, predicting the decision would wreak havoc. "Over 20 years of sentencing reform are all but lost," she said, "and tens of thousands of criminal judgments are in jeopardy."