District Court finds AWA mandatory sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment

Thanks to this post at Sex Crimes, I have learned of this recent federal district court opinion which concludes “that a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for [the defendant], under the specific facts of his case, is so grossly disproportionate to his crime as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”  US v. Farley, NO. 1:07-CR-196-BBM, slip op. at 8 (N.D. GA. Sept. 2, 2008). 

Unfortunately, this Farley decision does not fully review all the key “specific fact,” but this section of the opinion provides the essential highlights:

The court fully recognizes the serious nature of Mr. Farley’s offense.  He believed a ten year old child to exist and took steps to engage in sexual activity with her. It is also a fact that Mr. Farley never had any contact, sexual or otherwise, with the child.  No harm was suffered.  Of course, it was not possible for a child to be harmed, because the child was a creation of law enforcement, and no real child exists.

It appears that Mr. Farley travelled across state lines in an effort to engage in sexual activity with a fictious ten year old.  But, providing a constitutional twist on the school-yard “no harm, no foul” principle, the district court here decides that this act alone cannot provide a sufficient basis for a 30-year mandatory minimum sentencing term.

I may have more to say about this ruling once I get to read it closely, but I can already enjoy pondering whether the Justice Department will decide to appeal this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit.