June 26, 2019, 5:19 pm
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that even sex offenders deserve to have the reasons for their sentences determined by a jury, not a judge.
The justices ruled 5-4 that a federal law requiring sex offenders to return to prison based on a judge’s new findings is unconstitutional. Supreme Court precedent gives juries, not judges, the power to determine criminal conduct.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of President Donald Trump’s two nominees on the court, wrote the opinion and was joined by the court’s four liberal justices – for the fourth time this term.
“A jury must find every fact that is essential to an individual’s punishment,” Gorsuch said. In the case before the court, the accused received “a new prison term based instead only on facts found by a judge by a mere preponderance of the evidence.”
It was a victory for Andre Hammond, an Oklahoma man sentenced in 2010 to more than three years in prison on child pornography charges. In 2015, a judge found him guilty of violating his supervised release and tacked on five more years in prison.
The question before the justices: Can a judge, rather than a jury, decide what facts merit a new sentence?
The post Supreme Court rules for sex offender in child pornography case testing power of judges, juries appeared first on Florida Action Committee.
Go to Source
Author: Florida Action Committee
The opinions expressed within posts and comments are solely those of each author, and are not necessarily those of Women Against Registry.
Women Against Registry Family Foundation.
We will receive .5% of your total purchase as a donation from amazon.
If you want to shop at amazon, please shop at
smile.amazon.com/ch/47-4076038
Our organizations, Women Against Registry and WAR Family Foundation, do not support or condone illegal sexual activity based on state and federal laws, to include child or adult sex trafficking. We are not and have never been affiliated with any organizations that promote, support or condone sex between adults and minors.
