Friday, February 18, 2005
It looks like the press is starting to expose one of the worst examples of sentencing guideline inequities. In the recent issue of Christian Science Monitor, one finds a discussion of how Jamie Olis, former Dynergy executive, could have received a reasonable sentence but for the mandates of the guidelines that forced the judge to add up the amount of loss in computing the sentence. (See here). The Fifth Circuit heard appellate arguments in this case, and in light of Booker the sentence may now be subject to modification.
As pointed out here, sentences for the most part, are unlikely to change as a result of the Booker decision. Most judges will use the instruction of the Supreme Court and use the guidelines as advice. But some sentences, like the sentence of Jamie Olis, certainly merits review and reconsideration. (see also Ann Woolner of Bloomberg's article titled, "Olis's 24 Year Prison Sentence Due for a Shave." The press plays an important role in how issues are framed for the public, so it is important that the media continue to expose cases such as this one. (esp)