[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 14210]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               JUSTICES RAISE DOUBTS ON SENTENCING RULES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor because of two court 
decisions that will have, I think, very important effects on the 
criminal justice system, on justice in our country, and on the lives of 
many Americans who have indeed not had the benefits of equal justice in 
our country. One comes from the Massachusetts Supreme Court where a 
district judge has thrown out the Federal sentencing guidelines as 
unconstitutional. This is an interesting case because the guidelines 
were upheld in 1989 by the Supreme Court, so it will be important to 
look closely at this case because the judge clearly feels that there 
are now grounds to throw the sentencing guidelines out notwithstanding 
the Supreme Court decision and probably because the Supreme Court 
decision does not take into effect all that the Massachusetts district 
judge has found.
  This has to go, of course, to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. It 
is very significant. What makes it more significant is that the Supreme 
Court itself has now just thrown out Washington State guidelines of a 
kind that are very similar to the Federal guidelines, at least in many 
respects, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
  Essentially what the court found in the 5-4 decision is that the 
Washington State guidelines violate the sixth amendment right to a jury 
trial because the sentence is beyond the ordinary range for the crime 
and this increase in punishments was decided by a judge and not by a 
jury. Therefore it was in violation, according to the Supreme Court, of 
the sixth amendment right to a jury trial.
  Essentially what the court seemed to be saying was that the 
Washington State sentencing guidelines allow a judge to enhance 
sentences beyond what has been placed before a jury and beyond what the 
crime usually carries. That is exactly what the Federal guidelines do 
and that is why everyone is scrambling to see whether or not we have 
something very significant and how to take charge of it.
  Its significance, of course, cannot be doubted. For myself, my chief 
interest is not only as a constitutional lawyer but my interest as well 
is on the effect of the Federal sentencing guidelines on an entire 
generation of young black men. Only crack cocaine drug offenses have 
enhanced sentences. That is to say, if you have cocaine, there is no 
enhanced sentence. But if you have crack cocaine, there is an enhanced 
sentence. As you might imagine, crack cocaine, because it is cheap, is 
found in lower-income communities. The effect has been quite 
outrageous. Essentially if you look at our country today, black men are 
5 percent of the population. They are almost 50 percent of those in 
jail. Have they been in jail for being drug kingpins? Not at all. These 
are mostly drug users. Any selling they have done has been to support 
their habit for the most part. And the Federal sentencing guidelines 
have so outraged the Federal judiciary that the Judicial Conference has 
in fact for years now been for the repeal of the guidelines. No less 
than two conservative justices, Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, 
have come forward in speeches against the Federal judicial guidelines.
  These cases merit real attention. The harm that has been done has 
been done by this Congress. It is the Congress who in effect has 
virtually instructed the sentencing commission to enhance sentences and 
to enhance sentences as much as possible and particularly for these 
drug offenses which are far from where the harm is being done.
  The essential effect is to destroy the African American family. Young 
women, well educated, who are out in the world working in 
disproportionate numbers to the young men who are there; young men as 
boys siphoned off into the drug economy, the gun economy, the 
underground economy which is the economy left in the inner cities of 
our country; a huge disparity between marriageable young men and 
marriageable young women, all traces back to the criminal justice 
system.
  These cases have a lot to teach our country. They are going to make 
their own changes. These cases are an instruction to us to look closely 
at the Federal sentencing guidelines so that we can do our part to get 
rid of this injustice in the criminal justice system.

                          ____________________