835
F.2d 1195.
Dressler,
p. 55-58
Facts:
Half an
hour after getting out of jail for bank robbery, the defendant robbed another
bank. He was sentenced to life without
parole under a statute forbidding career criminals from possessing firearms.
Issues:
Under the
statute, can
Rule: The statute does not state
a maximum penalty, but it does forbid release on parole.
Analysis:
The court
disposes of the issue of the appeal quickly.
Precedent states that in the absence of a maximum term of years, the
court can either impose a ridiculous sentence, like 500 years, or can simply go
with life. Any sentence that is selected
under the statute is permissible and cannot be reviewed by the appeals court.
What
is interesting in this case, however, are the dicta of Easterbrook and Posner.
Easterbrook
suggests that the sentence imposed by the trial court is not only permissible
but just on the basis of general deterrence and incapacitation.
Posner
concurs, but feels that the sentence was too harsh. He reasons that given the hard economic facts
of bank robbery, it is highly unlikely that a sentence of life in prison will
have any greater deterrent effect than a sentence of twenty years in
prison. He suggests the latter sentence
will be adequate for the purposes of specific deterrence because evidence shows
old people don’t commit as many crimes.
Conclusion:
The court
upheld the sentence of the trial court.
Notes
and Questions
1.
2. I buy into
Posner’s argument for the shorter sentence, but (without empirical evidence) I would
guess that advancements in medicine and cultural changes actually make it more
likely a 55-year-old would continue to be an active criminal. I would go for a 30 or 35 year sentence and
leave the defendant at retirement age when he gets out.
3. Sentencing has
been taken out of judge’s hands, more or less.
Is this really desirable? Couldn’t
this lead to cases of injustice just as great as the ones legislators were
trying to eliminate by tying judges’ hands?
4. Shaming may be
a cheaper way for society to impose the same cost on a criminal as
imprisonment. I think it should
certainly be considered.