Homestead mailing list

[Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

Not enough coffee---forgot to include this in prefious Injustice  System 
post.

                
	The Christian Science Monitor - csmonitor.com 
<http://www.csmonitor.com/index.html> 	

from the October 06, 2004 edition - 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1006/p08s03-comv.html


   Judges Reasonably Doubted

The idea seems plain enough. A person convicted of a crime shouldn't be 
sentenced on evidence never heard by the jury.

Yet as long as anyone can remember, judges in the US have handed down 
sentences relying on "facts" provided by prosecutors that didn't pass 
the test of a jury's verdict.

Finally, last June, the US Supreme Court said this age-old practice had 
to end. The decision, known as Blakely v. Washington, threw both federal 
and state courts into a bit of chaos. Both Congress and the Bush 
administration asked the court to clarify quickly what judges should now 
do in sentencing, and whether juries should be given all the facts in a 
case that may not relate to innocence or guilt.

On Monday, the first day of the court's new session, the nine justices 
held an expedited hearing on the issue. Their comments, as well as their 
written decisions last June in the 5-4 Blakely ruling, indicate they're 
openly divided on whether judges can be trusted to determine whether 
extra evidence not given to a jury is permissible when passing a sentence.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a recent speech she was "disgusted" 
with the way the court dealt with the issue. At Monday's hearing, she 
appeared frustrated enough with the majority's opinion that she 
suggested "maybe we should just leave it to Congress."

But the liberal-conservative majority stood fast on their argument that 
the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury also requires any evidence 
that leads to a sentence greater than the maximum be proven to a jury. 
"The whole reason for jury trials is we don't trust judges," said 
Justice Antonin Scalia.

In other words, leave fact-finding to juries and bar judges from going 
beyond the law.

The high court has several options in deciding in the limits of judges' 
discretion in sentencing and forcing prosecutors to lay out more 
evidence to juries. Some critics worry cases might become too 
complicated for juries with too much evidence to digest.

But the court looks to have renewed its faith in the ability of juries 
to administer justice, within a system of governance that continually 
needs to root itself in the common sense of common people.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and 
related links <http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1006/p08s03-comv.html>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All 
rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email Copyright 
<http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=C3EFF0F9F2E9E7E8F4>