AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!Hot on HuffPost:
Elected Legislators Continue To Occasionally Assist Bank Lobbyists In…
Hospital Prices Explained: How Charges For Medical Care Got So Crazy
The Important Supreme Court Decision You Didn't Hear About Last Week
The reason you probably haven't heard much about Pepper is because the decision in his case, Pepper v. United States, came out last Wednesday just a few minutes before the justices released their opinion in the high-profile case of Snyder v. Phelps, in which the court upheld the free speech rights of anti-gay funeral protesters. Virtually all of the coverage of the day's Supreme Court news, and the next day's for that matter, focused on the Phelps' First Amendment case, leaving Pepper's sentencing decision under-reported, if not completely under-appreciated.
"Supreme Court rules in favor of former Iowa drug addict" is how the Des Moines Register put it.
The court, in a 6-2 vote (Justice Elena Kagan recused), held that Pepper's rights had been violated when a judge who was re-sentencing him refused to consider the significant "rehabilitation" Pepper had accomplished since first being sentenced years earlier. In so doing, the justices moved to finally end an eight-year-long case (a case far longer, by the way, than either of the sentences meted out to Pepper) and generated another round of judicial debate over the roles of the courts and the Congress when it comes to crime and punishment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion. She offered yet another interpretation of the vagaries of the sentencing guidelines, the congressionally sanctioned and judicially administered rules that help determine which convicted criminal gets which prison sentence and why. For the third time in six years, the court weighed the policies contained in those guidelines and rejected them. So that sound you heard late last week was the sound of federal prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys scrambling over their sentencing tactics in pending federal cases. Like its immediate predecessors, Pepper v. United States is required reading.
About those predecessors: In 2005, the court in Booker v. United States stunned many people when it declared the guidelines "advisory" and not "mandatory" to give back some sentencing discretion to the federal judges who are asked to impose a sentence. In 2007, the court in Kimbrough v. United States, furthered refined the scope of the guidelines, again saying that they must yield to constitutional protections. And now Pepper, which is particularly relevant at a time when federal prisons in some jurisdictions (like California) are terribly overcrowded. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented (separately) and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion.Pepper's story is compelling. Here's an admitted meth dealer, an addict, who turns his life around in prison, only to see federal judges at all levels of power struggling with what to make of, and whether to formally account for, his rehabilitative work. Here's how the court described those efforts:
That was at the time of Pepper's first re-sentencing in 2006 (I told you this is an old case). Two years later, in 2008, here's how the justices recounted the events of Pepper's second re-sentencing hearing:In his testimony, Pepper first recounted that while he had previously been a drug addict, he successfully completed a 500-hour drug treatment program while in prison and he no longer used any drugs. Pepper then explained that since his release from prison, he had enrolled at a local community college as a full-time student and had earned A's in all of his classes in the prior semester. Pepper also testified that he had obtained employment within a few weeks after being released from custody and was continuing to work part-time while attending school. Pepper confirmed that he was in compliance with all the conditions of his supervised release and described his changed attitude since his arrest.
Writing for the court, Justice Sotomayor determined that any sentencing judge, even a re-sentencing judge, should have considered these facts when determining how long Pepper's sentence should have been. Congress did not specifically preclude such consideration, Justice Sotomayor wrote, and to the extent the sentencing guidelines did not permit judges to depart "downward" in Pepper's case those guidelines had to yield to Pepper's constitutional rights to submit relevant sentencing evidence on his own behalf. And so now Pepper will receive a third sentencing, at least eight years after his first, unless federal lawyers finally just give up.Pepper informed the court that he was still attending school and was now working as a supervisor for the night crew at a warehouse retailer, where he was recently selected by management as "associate of the year" and was likely to be promoted the following January. Pepper also stated that he had recently married and was now supporting his wife and her daughter. Pepper's father reiterated that Pepper was moving forward in both his career and his family life and that he remained in close touch with his son.
Although he concurred in the decision, Justice Breyer cautioned that it should not be taken too far and that the goals and policies of the United States Sentencing Commission should not be disregarded too lightly by trial judges. He wrote: "A just legal system seeks not only to treat different cases differently but also to treat like cases alike. Fairness requires sentencing uniformity as well as efforts to recognize relevant sentencing differences."
In dissent, Justice Alito lamented a majority opinion that he fears could encourage federal trial judges all over the country to "freestyle" sentencing decisions, a long-standing problem of crime and punishment that the sentencing guidelines were intended to fix in the first place in 1984. "Some language in today's opinion reads like a paean to that old regime," Justice Alito wrote, "and I fear that it may be interpreted as sanctioning a move back..." At least he was on Pepper's side in the case.
Which is more than could be said of Justice Thomas. He also dissented. He wrote that he would have affirmed Pepper's second sentence -- 65 months -- because it is what the sentencing guidelines called for and was not an unconstitutionally severe sentence under the Sixth Amendment. Justice Thomas wrote: "Pepper admitted in his plea agreement to involvement with between 1,500 and 5,000 grams of methamphetamine mixture, which carries a sentence of 10 years to life. Because Pepper has admitted facts that would support a much longer sentence than the 65 months he received, there is no Sixth Amendment problem in this case."
While the Phelps case directly impacts church members and the poor families they choose to picket, the Pepper case will affect many more people, both in and out of prison, as its principles get passed down to trial judges. The Supreme Court rendered two very important rulings Wednesday and just because we all talked about the one doesn't mean we won't be living with the consequences of the other, too.
Our New Approach to Comments
Add a Comment
The purpose of the Justice system is justice. Not necessarily punishment, rehabilitation, or "closure" for victims. If someone breaks the law they should have to pay for that crime. The reason we have justices as the arbiters of what that price should be is to look at each case a decide what is in the best interest of "justice" - or what is best for the community and the laws that it abides by. In this case, there was a serious crime committed. There should be a cost. But the price paid should be beneficial to the community. Is putting that man in jail going to benefit him or the community? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like it would reinforce the idea that the justice system is not fair and balanced. So put him on tight probation. give him community service that involves working with kids to show them that ANYONE can turn them selves around and be productive and happy. Wouldn't that benefit the community more? Well, what about everyone getting the same sentence regardless - lock them up and throw away the key, you say. That will make us "safe". NOT. That's as ridiculous as the "zero drug tolerance" in schools. Sounds good. Until my 12 year old daughter got suspended for a tube of rolaids in her purse. "If we make an exception for her, we have to make and exception for everything for everybody". Huh? Can we go too far in giving people a chance? yes. But we can also go too far the other way. How about somewhere in the middle? Like making the judge justify deviation from the "guidelines" that can be reviewed and changed if there is a need. Geez people. Get a grip.
March 14 2011 at 2:13 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHaving recently interviewed a federal judge for a school project, I can say that the sentencing guidelines are the most arbitrary and impersonal style of justice yet devised. The judge literally sits with a 2000 page book and a calculator and after about 10 minutes of basic math can derive the sentence of the convicted without ever even seeing the defendant. Judges are supposed to be the best of the best, they should be the ones tuning our moral compass, they are chosen for being intelligent, thoughtful, but most of all fair. Whats the point of even having judges when a temp with a calculator could do the same things? Guidelines leave justice up to politicians, and I think we all know that is a bad idea. So, bravo Supreme Court! For giving judges their ability to judge back!
March 08 2011 at 1:08 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply
Danny Haszard
Harassment by religious extremist
Jehovah's Witnesses instigated court decisions in 1942 which involved cursing a police officer calling him a fascist and to get in your face at the door steps,....this same JW 1942 court decision upheld infamous Phelps hate church in 2011
----
Danny Haszard, more on this group
http://www.dannyhaszard.com
Personally, I completely agree with SCOTUS on the sentencing issue. A "justice" system that does not take into consideration the specific circumstances of not just the crime, but also of the accused, is neither just nor fair. In this case, someone who has actively worked to overcome their addiction and has so clearly turned their life around should not be given the same sentence as someone who is still actively using and shows no indication of even wanting to change.
After all, the point of incarceration is not punishment alone - it is also supposed to be rehabilitation. So when the person to be sentenced has shown that they have already rehabilitated and the likelihood that they will re-offend is as small as it would be for someone who never committed a crime before, those facts should mitigate the sentence. Otherwise there is no incentive for anyone to rehabilitate.
these are good examples of how our justice system is unraveling before our very eyes. there is no quick justice.which encourages more evil. plea bargaining is a form of bribery which perverts justice. a man's confession should warrant the sentence. it seems the decision making of our courts is marked by indesiviness. arbitrary law is rampant,and will never work in a just society.
March 07 2011 at 8:06 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyMr. Cohen did an excellent job by clearly and somewhat fairly presenting both positions in this very difficult case.
It's easy to agree with the majority opinion which requires, during re-sentencing, consideration of a convicted person's post conviction conduct. But sentence uniformity is important (as stated by Justices Alito and Breyer) and the logic of Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion seems quite sound and not easy to refute or disregard.
Is this one of those difficult cases involving conflicting principles which produces bad law? However, I suppose cases reaching the Supreme Court tend to be difficult.
I would like to see Mr. Cohen write a follow-up article discussing how Congress could revise federal sentencing guidelines in an effort to further sentence uniformity in a constitutional way – not an easy task. But, to attract readers, the headline would probably have to include something like “Charlie Sheen”.
Gerry K.
Brigantine, NJ
The biggest problem is for a person that has done andy type of Jail/Prison time is that they will be punished for it the rest of thier lives. Yes there should be sentencing guidelines lines but a judge should also have the option of look what that person has done to turn around and should be given credit for that also. Its just like in life management will write up an employee for doing wrong (perm record) but won't put any thing in writing to commend an employee for doing great
March 07 2011 at 5:31 AM Report abuse Permalink -1 rate up rate down ReplyIt seems to me that Justice Thomas got it right. Justice Thomas wrote "Pepper admitted in his plea agreement to involvement with between 1,500 and 5,000 grams of methamphetamine mixture, which carries a sentence of 10 years to life. Because Pepper has admitted facts that would support a much longer sentence than the 65 months he received, there is no Sixth Amendment problem in this case."
The law should be respected as it is written and not adjusted by eight tyrants in black robes.
A minor point, of course, but Mr. Cohen notes that "federal prisons in some jurisdictions (like California) are terribly overcrowded." Unfortunately the case he cites (Schwarzengger v. Plata) has nothing to do with federal prisons. The suit is about overcrowding in California's state prisons, which are running close to 190% of capacity, far above the overcrowding in federal prisons.
March 07 2011 at 12:04 AM Report abuse Permalink +4 rate up rate down Replyyour comment first
March 06 2011 at 11:56 PM Report abuse Permalink -9 rate up rate down Reply
Follow Politics Daily
Supreme Court Clears Path Toward Post-Conviction DNA Testing
The Important Supreme Court Decision You Didn't Hear About Last Week
Jared Lee Loughner Case: Feds Add Murder Charges, Potential Death Penalty
Supreme Court's 8-1 Westboro Ruling -- and Alito's Passionate Dissent
Supreme Court Upholds Westboro Baptist Church's Right to Military Funeral Protests
POPULAR
- 21 Songs of 21st Century Politics
- Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy
- Soraya M., Stoned to Death for Being an "Inconvenient Wife''
- Jimmy Carter Leaves Church Over Treatment of Women
- Michelle Obama's Lavish Spain Vacation Sparking Criticism
- Meet Marc Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton's Fiancé
- The Five Most Racist Obama Cartoons?
News From Our Partners
- Illinois’ fracking and coal rush is a national crisis
- Developers evict historic women’s shelter to build luxury hotel
- Kaitlyn Hunt refuses plea offer, will go to court over high school relationship
- DHS admits “impossible” to control 3D-printed guns
- Journalists file suit against Manning trial secrecy
- More Stories »
- Snooki, Christie Finally Meet at Jersey Shore
- In Some States, Poorest Out of Luck on Health Care Reform
- How Smoking Ban Increases Bowling Shoes Lawsuits
- Holder Backed Fox News Probe
- IRS's Lerner Placed on Leave
- More Stories »
- Christians in the Arab world: A guide
- 10 things you need to know today: May 25, 2013
- The week's best editorial cartoons
- Is Wall Street literally writing America's laws now?
- Could fracking ruin Germany's beer?
- More Stories »
Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
HuffPost Politics
12 Comments