Report Finds Huge Disparities In Criminal Sentencing

There are very few things in life that are certain.  Gravity keeps us bound to this planet, Breaking Bad is the best show on television, and if you ever decide to commit a drug crime in New York make sure Judge Arthur D. Spatt isn’t presiding over your case.

Just joking, committing any crime is always a bad idea, though according to a new report on judicial sentencing, the worst idea is not shopping for the right judge.  If you haven’t read the report yet, then click on over to it.  It’s a fascinating read showcasing the huge disparity that often occurs in criminal sentencing.  Judge Spatt for example gave an average sentence of 64 months to defendants convicted of a drug crime, whereas the average sentence for the same offense was 24 months.  The report cataloged thousands upon thousands of criminal sentences and came to a conclusion that many in the legal industry were already aware of: criminal sentences aren’t uniform.

In fact, they are far from it.  The study included a pool of 885 judges and the sentences given to over 370,000 defendants.  It ranked court districts by which had the most sentencing disparities.  Though you may be tempted to find out where your court lands in this ranking, don’t be so quick to put much value in it because the study essentially found that they were all pretty bad.  Much like rearranging chairs on the Titanic, rank in this case isn’t going to do much to keep the ship from sinking.

Now I wasn’t singling out Judge Spatt to be mean or anything, but rather I was just using him to make a point.  Most legal lay people aren’t aware of the level of discretion judges have when determining the length of criminal sentences for convicts.  Typically, most laws only set a maximum and minimum sentence for any particular offense; however sentencing guidelines don’t require any uniformity in sentences.  Judges need only consider a number of factors based on the defendant’s criminal history, his or her role in the crime, whether anyone was hurt, and any other factors that would make the crime more or less severe in the eyes of the law.

Furthermore, in terms of reporting, the names of judges aren’t required to be reported along with the sentences they dish out.  The rationale is to prevent judges from being singled out on the basis of their sentences.  It makes sense, since including such information could lead to an uptick in appeals on the basis of unfair sentencing, judges becoming overly scrutinized for their actions thereby further clogging the behemoth that is our country’s criminal justice system, and of course the potential for judge shopping.  The problem is that without such reporting standards, what we get is the current predicament that we’re in now where judges have free reign on sentencing.

But is it really a bad thing that judges are held accountable for their actions?  As it stands today, it’s already very difficult and expensive to appeal, well, any judicial decree.  By keeping this shroud of secrecy on criminal sentencing, defendants are left with little recourse to show bias.  And though we’d all like to think that once a judge dons that black robe they become neutral instruments of the law, history has shown us that reality is far from it.

It’s sort of like dealing with a phone company.  I signed up of a promo phone plan months ago, and the price I was supposed to get has never actually been what I was charged at the end of the month.  And yesterday, after calling in for the tenth time, the company suddenly decided that they should now charge me a higher rate and that any history of my previous price plan was not in my account.  What could I do about it?  The only thing I could do (short of suing) was sweet talk the operator to curry favor despite the fact that they were wrong to begin with.  The reason is because the phone company knows they have resources and time to fight battles that far outstrip yours.  The only solution is to kowtow and hope for the best.

And in essence, this is what’s going on with criminal sentencing today.  Piss off a judge and they can easily give you a higher sentence despite what is typical for your particular offense.

Now, some would say these are criminals and therefore they shouldn’t complain.  As when one does the crime, they must do the time, regardless of the unfairness of it.  That’s an understandable perspective.  However, it’s also unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.  Though I’m not saying that what the current sentencing disparity we have in our justice system today is indicative of complete constitutional violation; what I am saying is that without better reporting standards and pushes for uniformity, we will never know what is and isn’t unconstitutional.