Ashcroft Objects to Lenient Jurists
WASHINGTON — In a drive to challenge lenient judges, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft says he wants to be alerted whenever a federal judge imposes a criminal sentence that is less than called for by U.S. guidelines.
In a July 28 memo to U.S. attorneys' offices across the nation, Ashcroft said he had a "solemn obligation" to ensure that the laws setting punishments for federal crimes were "faithfully, fairly and consistently enforced."
Aides to the attorney general said he was seeking accurate data on sentencing patterns. It would be troubling if judges in Massachusetts and Arizona, for example, were regularly imposing different punishments for the same federal crimes, they said.
Ashcroft also wants to know of instances in which a judge's sentence represents a "downward departure" from U.S. guidelines so the Justice Department can file an appeal with a higher court.
His memo is the latest move in a long-running dispute involving prosecutors, judges and lawmakers about who decides the proper punishments for a convicted criminal.
Until the mid-1980s, Congress set maximum and minimum penalties for a multitude of federal crimes, but entrusted a trial judge with the power to set the proper punishment for the criminal being sentenced.
But Congress took away much of a judge's sentencing authority in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. That measure established the U.S. Sentencing Commission and ordered it to establish detailed guidelines to set terms for a particular crime and for a defendant with a particular criminal history.
At the time, the sentencing reform law was championed by an unlikely liberal-conservative duo of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.).
While liberals said they wanted to ensure that a sentence would not turn on whether the defendant was rich or poor or white or black, conservatives said they wanted to ensure that sentences for a criminal would not turn on whether the judge was harsh or lenient.
Congress made two other crucial changes during the same period: It eliminated parole for federal crimes, so that defendants would be required to serve nearly the full prison sentence, and lawmakers imposed mandatory minimum sentences for a series of drug crimes.
By the early 1990s, many judges were complaining that they were forced to sentence too many defendants to long prison terms, even if their culpability was minimal. For example, many young women were sent to federal prison as a result of unwittingly agreeing to carry bags or luggage that contained illegal drugs.
