Change the names from Ellis to Persky, Manafort to Turner, and this opening paragraph sounds remarkably familiar.
The 47-month sentence imposed on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has drawn widespread criticism that Judge T.S. Ellis’s decision to give Manafort a sentence far below the 19.5 to 24.5-year guidelines range was motivated by Manafort’s race and class or by partisan bias. In fact, his flawed decision is a consequence of the vast discretion given to federal judges to issue sentences without real fear of being overturned.
There are three general reactions to the sentence, that it was too harsh, too lenient and about right. Then there was a more detached reaction, that regardless of how it fit Manafort, the best takeaway was that all defendants should be shown less harshness, that sentences have inflated to the point that ridiculously and pointlessly long sentences had become accepted as necessary and appropriate. Any sense of leniency here reflected what sentences should be for every defendant, and mandatory minimums and Draconian guidelines were constraints that undermined the authority of judges to fashion proper, individualized sentences. Continue reading
