{"id":12185,"date":"2010-11-16T15:34:07","date_gmt":"2010-11-16T20:34:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=12185"},"modified":"2010-11-16T15:34:07","modified_gmt":"2010-11-16T20:34:07","slug":"scotus-okays-piling-on-mandatory-minimums-%e2%80%94-in-the-name-of-proportionality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2010\/11\/scotus-okays-piling-on-mandatory-minimums-%e2%80%94-in-the-name-of-proportionality\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Okays Piling on Mandatory Minimums \u2014 In the Name of Proportionality?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in\u00a0Abbott v. United States<\/em> that the five-year mandatory minimum prescribed by 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 924(c) must be imposed consecutively to other mandatory minimums imposed pursuant to other statutes. \u00a0The 924(c) mandatory minimum targets defendants who have used, carried, or possessed a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.<\/p>\n

The defendants in\u00a0Abbott <\/em>illustrate how the same conduct that triggers 924(c) can also trigger other mandatory minimums. \u00a0<\/p>\n

Abbott himself was a felon with an extensive criminal history. \u00a0As a result, his possession of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime also subjected him to the fifteen-year mandatory minimum of the Armed Career Criminal Act. \u00a0Adding this to the five years under 924(c), Abbott was sentenced to twenty years in prison.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Gould, the other defendant in\u00a0Abbott<\/em>, possessed his firearm in connection with a crack offense. \u00a0Under the stiff mandatory minimum statute for dealing crack, Gould faced an additional ten-year minimum on top of the 924(c) five.<\/p>\n

In the Supreme Court, Abbott and Gould argued that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, their 924(c) minimums need not have been imposed consecutively to their other, longer minimums. \u00a0The Court, however, affirmed both sentences.<\/p>\n

The defendants relied on the prefatory language to 924(c): \u201cExcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law . . . .\u201d \u00a0In Abbott\u2019s view, the \u201cexcept clause\u201d renders 924(c) inoperative when another, longer mandatory minimum applies to the same conduct that would otherwise function as a predicate for the 924(c) minimum. \u00a0(Gould advanced a slightly different interpretation of the clause.)<\/p>\n

The Court, however, adopted the government\u2019s interpretation, under which the \u201cexcept clause\u201d only kicks in when the other, longer minimum is for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. \u00a0In other words, 924(c) applies unless there is a longer minimum that includes exactly the same elements as 924(c).<\/p>\n

Although the statutory language is messy, it strikes me that the Court\u2019s interpretation better fits the language than the defendants\u2019 interpretations. \u00a0In particular, 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) seems to speak pretty clearly in favor of the Court\u2019s view: \u201c[N]o term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during which the firearm was used, carried, or possessed.\u201d<\/p>\n

I am nonetheless troubled by an aspect of the Court\u2019s reasoning: that is, the Court\u2019s rejection of the defendants\u2019 interpretations because they would result in \u201canomalies,\u201d \u201coddities,\u201d and outcomes that are \u201cbizarre\u201d and not \u201cequitable.\u201d \u00a0Although the Court did not use the term, what it really had in mind seems to be disproportionality \u2014 treating less culpable offenders more harshly than more culpable offenders.<\/p>\n

To be sure, the defendants\u2019 interpretation would provide a windfall of sorts for those 924(c) offenders who were \u201cfortunate\u201d enough to be subject to even longer minimums. \u00a0But 924(c) \u2014 like all mandatory minimums \u2014 has nothing to do with proportionality.<\/p>\n

In the federal system, we have a generally serviceable sentencing scheme intended to achieve proportionality \u2014 the guidelines. \u00a0Section 924(c) is not intended to accomplish proportionality, but to\u00a0override<\/em>proportionality. \u00a0Like other mandatory minimums, 924(c) takes a single sentencing variable \u2014 here, possession of a firearm \u2014 that may mean dramatically different things in different cases, and gives that single variable a dominant, uniform weight. \u00a0The guidelines provide for far more nuanced and sensible distinctions.<\/p>\n

It is hard to say exactly what the point of 924(c) and other mandatory minimums is \u2014 these election-year enactments are probably more about anti-crime political posturing than anything else \u2014 but it seems more than a bit perverse to invoke proportionality ideals when rejecting a defendant\u2019s proposed interpretation of the statute. \u00a0When the application of 924(c) systematically produces \u201canomalies,\u201d \u201coddities,\u201d and outcomes that are \u201cbizarre\u201d and not \u201cequitable,\u201d a limiting interpretation may bring more, not less, proportionality to our overall system for punishing drug and gun offenders.<\/p>\n

At one point, the Court itself came close to acknowledging as much: \u201cWe do not gainsay that Abbott and Gould project a rational, less harsh, mode of sentencing. \u00a0But we do not think it was the mode Congress ordered.\u201d \u00a0This points to a more honest interpretive approach. \u00a0When the statutory language does not bear a reading that makes for sensible sentencing policy, why pretend that it does?<\/p>\n

Cross posted at Life Sentences Blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in\u00a0Abbott v. United States that the five-year mandatory minimum prescribed by 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 924(c) must be imposed consecutively to other mandatory minimums imposed pursuant to other statutes. \u00a0The 924(c) mandatory minimum targets defendants who have used, carried, or possessed a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,28,74,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-criminal-law-process","category-federal-sentencing","category-us-supreme-court","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}