But What Does Norm Think About Sentencing?
Simple Justice: Norm, norm (small ‘n’ intended), Norm. Norm Pattis. I miss hearing from Norm, which is why I so enjoy it when he writes his Connecticut Law Tribune column. I keep asking Norm to let me know before he publishes something, but Norm is, well, Norm, and this time I had to find out from Doug Berman that Norm’s been up to his old tricks. Ah, Norm.
Norm says “Mandatory Sentences Lead To Major Injustices.” He figured this out completely on his own. I swear I had no influence whatsoever. This is, as far as I’m aware, the first time any lawyer in Connecticut (where Joe Lieberman was elected) has pursued such an extreme position. Leave it to Norm to shake things up.
So what’s Norm’s problem this time?
Mandatory minimum sentences make a mockery of the separation of powers. Lawmakers enact such legislation believing that they speak in the name of people who are sick and tired of coddling criminals. Anger and passion demand action. Lines get drawn. But these lines become clubs wielded without discretion and review by members of the executive branch.
Clubs? I love it. Visions of baby seals being beaten and bloodied. Don’t let those anti-criminal coddlers beat baby seals with clubs.
This isn’t justice. No one elects prosecutors. They never appear before elected officials for reappointment decisions. They lack accountability. Once a prosecutor has locked onto to a charge, no judge can dislodge him in the interest of justice. And a law without sentencing guidelines blindly adheres to the fiction that one size fits all. There are no safety valves for special cases; there are no downward departures for men and women deserving of consideration due to the sometimes special circumstances in their lives.
Everyone loves democracy and accountability, and those unelected prosecutors are anti-democratic. But…