Campbell v. Georgia: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Survives Separation of Power Attacks, Remaining a Viable Option for the Legislature in Its War on Crime

• Publication year: 2010

Campbell V. Georgia: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Survives Separation of Power Attacks, Remaining a Viable Option for the Legislature in Its War on Crime

Brian D. Boreman

Introduction

Nearly "[seventy] percent of American citizens believe crime is a problem which requires ‘emergency action . . . .'"[1] As a result, legislators have enacted mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, usually violent felonies, deemed to be the most harmful to society.[2] Communities strongly support these measures to incarcerate offenders so they are not "back on the streets, preying on innocent citizens."[3] But are mandatory minimum sentences constitutional, or do they violate the separation of powers doctrine inherent to our tripartite system of government? In Campbell v. Georgia,[4] the Georgia Supreme Court faced this issue and concluded that no separation of powers violation occurs through the implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing.[5]

This Article asserts that the court in Campbell correctly decided that mandatory sentencing does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Part I addresses the societal fear of a perceived increase in crime and the legislative response to the citizens' desire to incarcerate criminals for the full length of their sentences. This Part also identifies the ways in which courts have determined whether a separation of powers violation occurs when the legislature enacts mandatory minimum sentencing statutes and when the executive branch indicts individuals under such statutes. Part II analyzes the decision in Campbell by reviewing the facts and the precedent the court used to make its decision. Finally, Part III evaluates whether the court's decision in Campbell was correct by considering three issues: (1) whether a functionalist or formalist approach should be taken for determining separation of power violations; (2) whether mandatory minimum sentencing impedes upon a core duty of the judiciary; and (3) whether any pragmatic reasons bolster support for the court's decision in Campbell. The Article concludes that no violation of separation of powers occurs through the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences.

I. Background

A. The Need for Mandatory Minimum Sentences

The United States is founded upon the proposition that its citizens are due "[l]ife, [l]iberty and the [p]ursuit of [h]appiness . . . ."[6] The most significant impediment to the fulfillment of this ideal, however, is crime.[7] Major cities, such as New York and even the nation's capital, have experienced societal "meltdowns" resulting from high crime rates.[8] Residents are afraid to live and work in certain areas because attempts by police organizations to "take back the streets" have not been fully successful.[9]

Criminal homicide, by definition,[10] most clearly denies a person all of his guaranteed, aforementioned rights.[11] Although the murdered person is directly affected, a homicide also leaves other members of society with a lifetime of pain and regret.[12] Other crimes, such as domestic violence, also impede the enjoyment of inalienable rights, albeit not as obviously as criminal homicide.[13] For example, domestic violence deprives children and women of a life with security and stability.[14] Often such violence escalates into murder, thereby depriving the victims of their lives.[15]

As a result of escalating crime, citizens are demanding that federal and state politicians protect their rights through the enactment of anti-crime legislation.[16] Because politicians need public support to win elections, it is no surprise that there is an "electoral necessity" to "be tough on crime."[17] In the federal spectrum, President Reagan attempted to curb the public's fear of drug-related violence by declaring a "War on Drugs" that continues three administrations later.[18] More recently, President Clinton endorsed the use of mandatory minimum sentences[19] for people who commit certain violent crimes.[20] This approach, termed the "three strikes and you're out" policy,[21] states that upon conviction of a third violent felony, the sentencing court will impose a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison.[22]

State legislatures face even more pressure to enact tough anti-crime legislation than their federal counterparts because constituents tend to hold state representatives more accountable for the welfare of the community.[23] Unlike Washington-based federal officials, state representatives usually live within the community and see first-hand the effects of crime.[24] Furthermore, many of the crimes that society fears most are state-delineated crimes.[25] Since the state defines these crimes, only the state government may address the particular sentencing of these offenses.[26] Thus, many states have adopted their own versions of the "three strikes and you're out" policy through mandatory minimum sentencing.[27]

The California legislature passed one of the first "three strikes and you're out" laws in the country as a result of public fear surrounding the murder of twelve-year-old Polly Klaas.[28] Klaas was abducted from her bedroom by Allen Davis and subsequently murdered; authorities found her body nearly two months later lying in a ditch.[29] Previously, the police had arrested Davis seventeen times, three times for kidnapping and sexual abuse.[30] California legislators quickly amended the California Penal Code to prescribe a twenty-five year to life sentence for anyone convicted of a felony with two prior "serious felony" convictions.[31]

Following California's lead, states such as Indiana, New Mexico, and Tennessee have instituted mandatory life-imprisonment sentences upon conviction of a third specified felony.[32] The state of Mississippi created an even tougher law by enacting a mandatory life imprisonment sentence for anyone convicted of a third felony if just one of the prior convictions was for a "‘crime of violence' and [the] offender was sentenced and served more than one year for each prior felony."[33] Other states have enacted mandatory minimum sentences, but on more lenient terms, such as a "four strikes and you're out policy."[34]

In Georgia, as in other states, legislative action for mandatory minimum sentencing arose from public outrage over rising crime rates.[35] In an informal poll, Georgians resoundingly professed that "punishment for crimes [should] be made more severe."[36] Citizens believe that the "average prisoner . . . serves far less [prison time] than . . . he should."[37] On average, in 1995, prisoners sentenced to serve 5.87 years were released after only 2.33 years.[38] Furthermore, recidivism statistics in 1991 showed that forty-five percent of prisoners were on parole or probation when convicted for their latest offense.[39]

As a result of the public outcry against crime, the Georgia General Assembly passed the Sentence Reform Act of 1994.[40] This Act imposes stricter mandatory minimum sentencing than any other state.[41] The Act provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for any person "convicted for the first time[[42]] of [a] ‘serious violent felon[y]'[[43]] with the sentence to be served in its entirety."[44] If a jury convicts a person of a second serious violent felony, the mandatory minimum sentence is life in prison without the possibility of parole.[45] In effect, Georgia has reduced the "three strikes" to "two strikes and you're out."

B. Separation of Powers

The separation of powers doctrine provides a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government to ensure that one branch will not become dominant.[46] Although the United States Constitution does not expressly contain a provision for such a separation of powers, "it is implied in the allocation of legislative, executive, and judicial power under Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution."[47] The Georgia Constitution, however, does have an express provision stating "[t]he legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct; and no person discharging the duties of one shall at the same time exercise the functions of either of the others . . . ."[48] This provision "dictates the relationships between institutional actors and ensures that the system satisfies its two fundamental tenets: independence and interdependence."[49] But to what extent must one branch of government remain separate and distinct from another branch?

Chief Justice, and former President, William H. Taft wrote that a "rigid separation, while theoretically attractive, is practically impossible, because a government is a unit . . . ."[50] While some states have attempted to maintain a rigid separation of powers between each branch of government, other states have generally allowed a blending of functions between the branches.[51] This blending is permissible provided that one branch does not infringe upon the "core duties" of another branch.[52] While the definition of core duties differs from state to state, Georgia does not include the duty of defining criminal sentence terms as a core function of the judiciary.[53] Hence, Georgia case law recognizes that the General Assembly, in defining crimes and appropriate punishment, does not infringe upon a core function of the judiciary.[54]

1. Legislative Power To Define Sentences

State legislatures generally have the power to define crimes and their corresponding sentences.[55] The Georgia General Assembly is no exception.[56] Georgia adheres to the view that the legislature, not the judiciary, has power to "exercise discretion in fixing the quantum of punishment" for criminals.[57] Furthermore, a "judge is a mere agent of the law. He has no discretion except as it is given him. The penalty is affixed by law."[58] Thus, as demonstrated by over one hundred years of case law, the power to establish mandatory minimum sentences is within the province of the legislature.[59]

The Supreme Court of Georgia has followed...