SCOTUS on Mandatory Sentencing

The recent SCOTUS Booker decision on sentencing really should come as no surprise. Essentially, it simply restates the historic nature of judge and juries: Namely that juries determine fact, while Judges determine law.

Essentially, what was occurring was that after defendants were found guilty by a jury, when the judges passed sentencing, they considered elements not decided by the jury which increased the length of the sentences.

Essentially, the defendants were found guilty of an additional crime without benefit of having that element heard by a jury. That, said SCOTUS, is a no-no, and I agree. They went out of their way to distinguish between a Judge's discretion to choose a sentence within a range of choices, and when Judges are required to consider items which automatically increase a sentence. The former is fine, the latter is not.

Law Dork has some thoughts on the decision, and some links to other thoughts, including a post by Dana Mulhauser who worries that Juries will be given the sentencing power, without knowing it.