....Blakely v. Washington.... invalidated Washington’s sentencing guidelines for giving judges the power to impose sentences beyond the normal range based on specific findings about the defendant’s conduct.

Then came Booker (argued in the Supreme Court by TChris who writes at TalkLeft)

in United States v. Booker, the court applied that reasoning to the federal sentencing guidelines, ruling that the guidelines could be deemed constitutional only if they were regarded as “advisory” rather than mandatory.

Yesterday's opinion was written by Justice Ruth Ginsberg. Joining her were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Souter.

Dissenting: Justices Alito, Breyer and Kennedy.

As to the California law the Court ruled invalid:

The 1977 law adopted what is known as a determinate-sentencing approach. Each crime carried three possible sentences. The middle sentence was presumed to be the correct one unless the judge made findings that justified the higher or lower alternatives.

Since I practice primarily in federal court, I'm going to be more interested in a case argued next month:

Next month in Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, the court will hear arguments on whether a federal sentence within the guidelines range should be presumed to be reasonable.

If the court rules against the reasonableness presumption, judges will have even more latitude to impose a non-guideline sentence. The guidelines took effect in 1987. I've had ten years of cases pre-guidelines and 20 post-guidelines, and I have to say, I prefer non-guideline sentences. There's something about determining a person's future by mathematical calculation that just doesn't sit right with me.

While crimes may be the same, those who commit them are not. Simply dividing them, as the Guidelines mandate, into levels one through six based on their criminal history is very de-humanizing and takes away the Judge's ability to impose a sentence based not only on the seriousness of the offense but the character and history of the offender.