District of Arkansas Judge Tackles Gall and Guidelines

First noted on Professor Berman's blog, there is a fascinating sentencing memo detailing (and assailing) the blind adherence to the guidelines, the severity of home confinement, the need to account for medical infirmities, alternatives to imprisonment, and a host of other issues. District Judge Robert Dawson's 30 page sentencing memorandum is a must read for those interested in a thoughtful analysis of sentencing practices.

In justifying the sentence of home confinement because of the defendant's serious medical issues, the court notes,
The Court is not unaware that the sentence imposed today will dismay those who feel no punishment other than imprisonment can adequately punish Coughlin or any defendant convicted of any crime. But the Court is more concerned with engendering derision for the law in those aware of Coughlin's medical condition that might well be outraged by a criminal justice system that, despite the real investments of intelligence and moral judgment that contribute to that system, produces a sentence plainly inhumane. Imprisonment is unnecessary because probation can accomplish the goals of punishment, while avoiding a serious threat to Coughlin's life.

In addition, the judge provides a thoughtful analysis of the stautory goals of sentencing, remarking that "3553(a) permits variance because, based on the unique facts of a particular case, the sentence suggested by the Guidelines is not appropriate, as one size cannot be said to fit all. No chart of numbers will ever fully contemplate, quantify and cipher the endless variations of the human experience. While it might provide a normalizing force in sentencing, we cannot, with a system of points and categories, reduce justice to a universal formula."

In final rhetorical flourish, Judge Dawson observes that "[a] court that mechanically doles out precalculated sentences on a wholesale basis to categories of faceless defendants fails to do justice. A court that succumbs to apathy, bred by repetition, will cease to see defendants as individuals, with pasts and potentials, with humanity and promise."

While I am not sure that I agree with the ultimate sentence of home confinement imposed in this case, I recognize the appeal of Judge Dawson's criticism of the rote, mechanical nature of the guidelines as well as appreciate the thoughtfulness of his reasoning. If Rita and Gall are to have any real meaning, it is imperative that sentencing judges fully explain their reasoning and rationale without simply falling back of the mathematical precision of a sentencing matrix. I hope that more judges will follow Judge Dawson's lead.