Nov 1 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the U.S. Sentencing Commission lacked authority to enact a policy last year that would allow judges to deem changes in law as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons justifying releasing prisoners early.
A three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached that conclusion as it rejected, opens new tab a Pennsylvania man’s bid to reduce the nearly 42-1/2 year prison sentence he received for committing two armed robberies in 2003.
The defendant, Daniel Rutherford, had argued that following the passage of the criminal justice reform law the First Step Act, he was eligible for compassionate release because if he were sentenced for his crimes today, his sentence would be at least 18 years shorter than what he received in 2006.
The decision was decried by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who with fellow Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey had filed a friend-of-the court brief, opens new tab arguing the Sentencing Commission validly exercised its authority.
Durbin, who had backed the First Step Act, in a statement said the ruling wrongly stripped trial judges of their ability to determine if a change in law justified compassionate release and undermined the Sentencing Commission’s authority.
“This question will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court, and I’m hopeful that the court will uphold the Sentencing Commission’s authority and respect the ability of judges to exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis,” Durbin said.
The Sentencing Commission had no comment. A lawyer for Rutherford did not respond to a request for comment.
If the sentence is considered too harsh to be handed down today, it was too harsh yesterday. Too harsh is too harsh yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is no value in over punishing. Over punishment is simply vindictive, and there is no public interest served in vindictiveness.
Which brings us to the registry, which can be shown to provide no value and simply serves as public vindictiveness hidden behind a demonstrably false, categorically absurd illusion of legitimacy.
The subject of judges and justices being able to actually administer the law how they see fit best within reason, not into the realm of excessive or an Eighth Amendment violation, has long been questioned and argued in this country. We’re a nation who’s punishment scheme is unmatched by a lot of nations in this world, even where there are some far worse than ours. For other countries that look to us to be a beacon of light as it comes to legal matters and alleged justice, it blows the mind for sure.
A judge, justice, legal panel, governor, or president, should have the ability within their power to compassionately release someone. If this legal panel said that this ability is open to those who should have the power to do so, it probably should not be questioned. Our legal system is just so confusing sometimes with the way they think and the man/woman who is at the end of that punishment has got to be completely bewildered. I just feel a lot of times the person who’s the one impacted by it the most is the one least considered it everything in the end. Everybody else around them who has power to make decisions and pencil whip things doesn’t even truly care about them.