U.S. District Court Judge John S. Martin, Jr. (Southern District, New York) is leaving the bench after 16 years. Instead of going to senior status, he is returning to private practice. Many other federal judges are making the same decision. He explains why in an op-ed in today's New York Times, titled Let Judges Do Their Jobs:

For most of our history, our system of justice operated on the premise that justice in sentencing is best achieved by having a sentence imposed by a judge who, fully informed about the offense and the offender, has discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory limits. Although most judges and legal scholars recognize the need for discretion in sentencing, Congress has continually tried to limit it, initially through the adoption of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws.

Judge Martin notes that Congress has repeatedly tried to limit the sentencing discretion of judges--from the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act that resulted in federal sentencing guidelines, to its refusal to fix the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, to the recent limitations on judicial discretion tacked onto the Amber Alert bill (the Feeney Amendment.)

Every sentence imposed affects a human life and, in most cases, the lives of several innocent family members who suffer as a result of a defendant's incarceration. For a judge to be deprived of the ability to consider all of the factors that go into formulating a just sentence is completely at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has been a hallmark of the American system of justice.

Judge Martin is absolutely correct in his charge that Congress repeatedly has shown contempt for the judiciary. It is with sadness that we report his final statement,

When I took my oath of office 13 years ago I never thought that I would leave the federal bench. While I might have stayed on despite the inadequate pay, I no longer want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system.