At first blush, I just assumed that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on mandatory minimums was, as the nation's most famous inmate would say, a good thing. But after reading Dana Mulhauser's piece on the decision over at TNR, I now realize that I failed to take an important factor into consideration when making that judgment: namely, the jaw-dropping, eye-popping, never-ceases-to-amaze witlessness of the US Congress.

In an anxiously awaited decision, the Supreme Court today took the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines and made them voluntary. The immediate effect is a healthy one: Judges will again be given some element of discretion in handing down sentences, probably leading to a less mechanistic and more thoughtful administration of justice. But the repercussions don't end there. Congress is sure to act, and quickly. Its likely response will be to again take sentencing power away from judges, this time giving it to juries. If that's what happens, then the final result could be confusion, illogic, and ultimately a system that treats defendants with less fairness, not more.

The problem, as Mulhauser goes on to explain, is that any legislative "fix" designed to save mandatory minimums would, in all likelihood, require juries to start issuing what are called "specialized verdicts" -- that is, a verdict not only on the defendant's guilt, but also on any issues that might bear on sentencing, such as whether a gun was used in the commission of the crime, or whether the accused acted with malice. And because we go to such great lengths in this country to ensure that our juries have absolutely no concept of what their verdicts mean in terms of sentencing, this could well leave us with a system in which no human being who was actually in possession of all the relevant facts would have any role in determining the proper punishment in a federal criminal case. Mr. Grisham, meet Mr. Kafka. And, both of you, meet Mr. Hugo.

Here's Dana Mulhauser again, wrapping things up:

When a judge decides sentencing factors, that judge knows the implications and can act accordingly. When a jury decides, it has no idea of the implications. By handing sentencing responsibility to a group that doesn't have access to the implications of its actions, Congress would be creating less informed and less fair decisions. And because, on appeal, juries' decisions are given more deference than judges' decisions, defendants would have a tougher time getting overly harsh sentences overturned. Maybe if Congress is going to give juries the power that used to belong to judges, it should give them the information, too. Otherwise, today's Supreme Court decision could end up being a very good ruling with very bad consequences.

Sounds worrisome, doesn't it? But, friends, there is reason for hope: after all, this criminal justice nightmare will never come to pass if Congress just decides to show half as much concern for your rights as it always does for Tom DeLay's....

POSTSCRIPT: Congratulations to TalkLeft's TChris, who successfully argued this case before the High Court.