Opinion ID: 2197150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: majority's response to the dissent

Text: In responding to the arguments raised in this dissent, the majority appears to unravel its whole opinion. In a stunning reversal in the penultimate paragraph of the analysis section, the majority states that, Contrary to the assertions of Justice Rathje's dissent, nothing in this opinion prevents a trial judge, in fashioning a sentence, from considering his or her knowledge of the sentences imposed in other cases. 189 Ill.2d at 62, 243 Ill.Dec. at 182, 723 N.E.2d at 214. In other words, trial courts can engage in comparative sentencing analysis. The majority seemingly retreats from the position taken in the rest of the opinion and allows trial courts to consider a limited kind of comparative sentencing information in fashioning a sentence. The majority's rule is that, as long as the trial court is already aware of the other sentences, it can consider them. However, the parties are not allowed to argue about any sentences of which the judge is not already aware. In other words, the majority sees no problems with comparative sentencing based on the frailties of an individual's memory, but recoils at the notion of comparative sentencing based upon statistically complete evidence. Not surprisingly, the majority gives no reason for drawing such a distinction. Furthermore, the majority cannot square this approach with the positions taken in the rest of the opinion. The majority holds that a court must make its sentencing determination on the particular facts of each case. If that is true, then the court should not be considering sentences it imposed in other cases. Also, the majority endorses the view that defendants are rarely, if ever, similarly situated. Again, if that is true, the court should not be considering sentences it imposed in other cases. Finally, the problems the majority believes are inherent in comparative sentencing would also be present if judges are allowed to consider sentences they imposed in other cases: judges would be relying on incomplete evidence, and the effective maximum sentence for an offense could be reduced to well below that set by statute if the judge felt compelled to follow other sentences.