Jim Sensenbrenner: “Mr. Speaker, the only opposition to this bill appears to come from those who are opposed in principle to mandatory…”

“Mr. Speaker, the only opposition to this bill appears to come from those who are opposed in principle to mandatory minimum sentences. I think that opponents of mandatory minimums would have a much more compelling case if they could assure Congress that the judges are faithfully following the sentencing guidelines that were passed 20 years ago at the time when Congress abolished parole and passed the law establishing determinant sentencing. Sadly, I am afraid the evidence does not support that. The most disturbing recent example of judges deciding to ignore the sentencing guideline's recommendations comes from Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy's testimony before a House appropriations subcommittee in which he stated that judges who depart downward are courageous, and the judges should not have to blindly follow unjust guidelines. Now, Congress creates crimes, Congress prescribes the penalties for crimes, and the reason that there were sentencing guidelines passed to begin with was to prevent both prosecutors and defense counsel from shopping around for judges to try cases that met with their own particular views on what the sentence should be, should the defendant be convicted. Well, because of statements like Justice Kennedy's, we now have to have mandatory minimums when we feel the crime is important enough that somebody should at least spend a day in jail or more.”