U.S. v. Sidhom
| Decision Date | 19 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. CR. 98-10289-EFH.,CR. 98-10289-EFH. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Nabil SIDHOM Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
The thoughts expressed in this Memorandum were immediately provoked by a hearing on the Defendant Sidhom's Motion for a Downward Departure1 and disposition, but are applicable to all sentencings under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines.
In the long tradition of the common law, it was the judge, the neutral arbiter, who possessed the authority to impose sentences which he deemed just within broad perimeters established by the legislature. Under the Sentencing Commission Guidelines the power to impose a sentence has been virtually transferred from the court to the government, which, as the prosecuting authority, is an interested party to the case. This transfer constitutes an erosion of judicial power and a breach in the wall of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Thus, the government, not only has the authority to prosecute crime and to decide the nature of the criminal charge to be preferred, but now has the power to determine the severity of the punishment. As a result, courts are required to react passively as automatons and to impose a sentence which the judge may personally deem unjust. There is a maxim of the law that no party can be a judge in his own case. That maxim is violated by the Sentencing Commission Guidelines.
General guidelines, formulated in the abstract and manipulated2 to its own advantage by the government as prosecutor, are not conducive to the imposition of a just sentence in an individual case. The fair method of sentencing is for an impartial judge, who is fully cognizant of an individual defendant's personal character, family responsibilities, medical and mental condition, criminal record, and the particular circumstances surrounding the crime, to impose sentence after deep reflection, informed by the judge's experience in life and in the law.
Since a senior judge is authorized to select the type of case he wishes to adjudicate or not to adjudicate, the Court has decided not to continue to draw criminal cases,3 for the reason that under the Guidelines the Court is prevented from exercising an impartial judgment, based on over forty years' experience in and study of the criminal law, as to what constitutes a just sentence in a specific case.
The Court does not delude itself that its feeble gesture of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Nigg
...minimum sentences, arguing that they amount to a legislative encroachment on the judiciary's territory. See, e.g., United States v. Sidhom, 144 F.Supp.2d 41, 41 (D.Mass.2001) (“[T]he government ... now has the power to determine the severity of the punishment. As a result, courts are requir......
-
U.S. v. Lewis
...power by the then controlling mandatory provisions of the Sentencing Commission Guidelines: (1) In the case of United States v. Sidhom, 144 F.Supp.2d 41 (D.Mass.2001), after becoming a senior judge, the Court decided not to continue to draw criminal cases because "[u]nder the Sentencing Com......
-
U.S. v. Sisson
...v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, ___ L.Ed. 2d ___ (2004). On June 19, 2001, the Court, in the case of United States v. Sidhom, 144 F.Supp.2d 41 (D.Mass.2001), decided not to continue to draw criminal cases because "[u]nder the Sentencing Commission Guidelines the power to impose......
-
Gridland: an allegorical critique of federal sentencing.
...Calabresi, What Makes A Judge Great. To A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., 142 U. PA. L. REV. 513, 513 (1993). (299) United States v. Sidhom, 144 F. Supp. 2d 41, 41-42 (D. Mass. (300) United States v. Jaber, 362 F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (D. Mass. 2005) (quoting U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL, supra ......