Bowman on the proposed Booker fix
Professor Frank Bowman, who advocated a go-slow approach in this testimony to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security during their February Booker hearing (highlights here), has drafted a terrific letter about the Booker fix provisions in the drug sentencing bill that is about to be the subject of House hearings (basics here, commentary here).
I have provided Frank’s letter for downloading below, and here is one of many choice paragraphs:
As I and others suggested would be the case, the system of advisory guidelines created by Booker seems to be working acceptably, at least for the moment. Statistics compiled by the Sentencing Commission suggest that judicial compliance with the Guidelines remains virtually identical to the levels that prevailed before Blakely and Booker. Congress is not faced with an emergency calling for immediate legislation. Moreover, any legislation that would fundamentally transform a system as complex as the federal sentencing guidelines requires time and careful thought. It had been my understanding that many, perhaps most, members of this Subcommittee were of the view that a legislative response to Booker should await data on the operation of the advisory system and should be the product of careful development and wide consultation. Section 12 of the present Bill does not meet these criteria. It is premature, poorly conceptualized, and imprecisely drafted. And far from being the product of careful consultation with interested and knowledgeable persons and institutions, it was inserted into the present Bill mere days before the Subcommittee markup with no notice to or consultation with anyone.