Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 97 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  Next

562

APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY

Breyer, J., dissenting

delegator (the legislature) what is, in effect, the same rule-making power?

The majority appears to offer two responses. First, it argues for a limiting principle that would prevent a legislature with broad authority from transforming ( jury-determined) facts that constitute elements of a crime into ( judge-determined) sentencing factors, thereby removing procedural protections that the Constitution would otherwise require. See ante, at 486 ("[C]onstitutional limits" prevent States from "defin[ing] away facts necessary to constitute a criminal offense"). The majority's cure, however, is not aimed at the disease.

The same "transformational" problem exists under traditional sentencing law, where legislation, silent as to sentencing factors, grants the judge virtually unchecked discretion to sentence within a broad range. Under such a system, judges or prosecutors can similarly "transform" crimes, punishing an offender convicted of one crime as if he had committed another. A prosecutor, for example, might charge an offender with five counts of embezzlement (each subject to a 10-year maximum penalty), while asking the judge to impose maximum and consecutive sentences because the embezzler murdered his employer. And, as part of the traditional sentencing discretion that the majority concedes judges retain, the judge, not a jury, would determine the last-mentioned relevant fact, i. e., that the murder actually occurred.

This egregious example shows the problem's complexity. The source of the problem lies not in a legislature's power to enact sentencing factors, but in the traditional legislative power to select elements defining a crime, the traditional legislative power to set broad sentencing ranges, and the traditional judicial power to choose a sentence within that range on the basis of relevant offender conduct. Conversely, the solution to the problem lies, not in prohibiting legislatures from enacting sentencing factors, but in sentencing rules that determine punishments on the basis of properly defined

Page:   Index   Previous  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007