But What Does Norm Think About Sentencing?

Norm, norm (small ‘n’ intended), Norm. Norm Pattis.  I miss hearing from Norm, which is why I so enjoy it when he writes his Connecticut Law Tribune column.  I keep asking Norm to let me know before he publishes something, but Norm is, well, Norm, and this time I had to find out from Doug Berman that Norm’s been up to his old tricks.  Ah, Norm.

Norm says “Mandatory Sentences Lead To Major Injustices.”  He figured this out completely on his own.  I swear I had no influence whatsoever.  This is, as far as I’m aware, the first time any lawyer in Connecticut (where Joe Lieberman was elected) has pursued such an extreme position.  Leave it to Norm to shake things up.

So what’s Norm’s problem this time?

Mandatory minimum sentences make a mockery of the separation of powers. Lawmakers enact such legislation believing that they speak in the name of people who are sick and tired of coddling criminals. Anger and passion demand action. Lines get drawn. But these lines become clubs wielded without discretion and review by members of the executive branch.

Clubs?  I love it.  Visions of baby seals being beaten and bloodied.  Don’t let those anti-criminal coddlers beat baby seals with clubs.


This isn’t justice. No one elects prosecutors. They never appear before elected officials for reappointment decisions. They lack accountability. Once a prosecutor has locked onto to a charge, no judge can dislodge him in the interest of justice. And a law without sentencing guidelines blindly adheres to the fiction that one size fits all. There are no safety valves for special cases; there are no downward departures for men and women deserving of consideration due to the sometimes special circumstances in their lives.

Everyone loves democracy and accountability, and those unelected prosecutors are anti-democratic.  But wait a sec.  What’s that about “sentencing guidelines?”  Did you really say sentencing guidelines?  Aren’t sentencing guidelines the epitome of “one size fits all” justice?  Haven’t lawyers in federal court spent decades fighting the injustice of sentencing guidelines?  Norm, why the heck did you bring up sentencing guidelines?  Oh Norm, no, don’t do it.  Don’t say those awful words.  What are you thinking!


I am not a fan of judicial discretion. But I trust a judge before whom I can appear and argue more than a lawmaker I will never meet. And I trust most judges more than many prosecutors, who, by dint of our sentencing law have been made de facto kings of the courthouse.

So if you’re not a fan of judicial sentencing, but even less of legislative sentencing, which still trumps prosecutorial king-iness, does that mean you are a fan of sentencing guidelines?  Oy gevalt.

Go do a few federal sentences and then let me know whether you really want to argue in favor of sentencing guidelines.  You may think differently.  But I still miss you, Norm.

7 thoughts on “But What Does Norm Think About Sentencing?

  1. SHG

    They may be crazy down there, but that’s one thing they got right south of the border.  The Great Republic of Texas knows how to sentence (plus has one extra defense to murder that America has yet to recognize).  We could learn a thing or two from you guys.

  2. SHG

    Hey, if you Yankees can elect Lieberman to the Senate as a Democrat, how hard could it be getting Connecticut to copy The Republic of Texas sentencing scheme?

    And I love that image of you.  It’s so…Norm.

Comments are closed.