New Jersey Law Allows Judges to Disclaim Sentencing Guidelines

New Jersey has a law called Section 2C:43-22 that allows judges to essentially disregard the state’s sentencing guidelines under certain circumstances. This law, referred to as the “disclaimer,” gives judges a lot of leeway when it comes to handing down criminal sentences.

What the Law Says

The disclaimer law states that nothing in New Jersey’s criminal code should be interpreted as preventing a judge from using their discretion when sentencing defendants. Essentially, it means that the sentencing guidelines in the code are just recommendations, not hard-and-fast rules.

Here’s an excerpt from the actual text of Section 2C:43-22:

“Nothing contained in this act is intended to supersede, repeal or modify the authority granted and procedure prescribed under any provision of Title 2A of the New Jersey Statutes or Title 2A of the New Jersey Rules of Court.”

In plain English, this means judges can impose any sentence they deem appropriate, even if it’s outside the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are meant to guide judges, not restrict them.

Why the Law Exists

New Jersey’s disclaimer law has been around since the state adopted its criminal code in 1978. It was included to give judges flexibility in sentencing, since every case is unique.

The lawmakers who drafted the code realized that rigid sentencing guidelines might prevent judges from taking into account important factors like:

• The defendant’s criminal history
• Whether they showed remorse
• If they cooperated with prosecutors
• The impact on victims
• Other circumstances of the crime

The disclaimer allows judges to weigh these factors and hand down a sentence they feel is truly fair, rather than just following a one-size-fits-all guideline.

How Judges Use the Disclaimer

New Jersey judges regularly use Section 2C:43-22 to impose sentences that diverge from the guidelines. For example, they might:

• Give a first-time offender probation instead of jail time
• Sentence a repeat offender to a longer prison term than recommended
• Allow alternative sanctions like rehab instead of incarceration

Defense attorneys often cite the disclaimer when arguing for leniency for their clients. They’ll say something like, “Your honor, you have the discretion under 2C:43-22 to give my client a lower sentence if you feel it’s appropriate.”

Prosecutors sometimes argue the opposite, urging judges to throw the book at a defendant under their disclaimer authority.

Notable Cases Involving the Disclaimer

Here are some high-profile New Jersey cases where judges used the disclaimer to impose sentences outside the guidelines:

• State v. Watson (1994): Judge gave repeat drug dealer life in prison, exceeding the 20-year guideline max.
• State v. Melvin (2004): 19-year-old with no priors got 5 years for robbery instead of probation.
• State v. Davis (2009): Man got 7 years for fraud rather than the recommended 4-year max.
• State v. Anderson (2018): Judge cited disclaimer to give probation for assault instead of 3-year minimum jail term.

These cases illustrate how 2C:43-22 allows judges to tailor sentences based on the circumstances. For better or worse, it’s a powerful tool.

Resources

• Full text of Section 2C:43-22
• Overview of NJ criminal code sentencing laws
• NJ Laws on sentencing guidelines
• Cases of judges using disclaimer to depart from guidelines

So in summary, New Jersey’s disclaimer law lets judges hand down any sentence they think is just – even if it departs from sentencing guidelines. This gives them flexibility but also opens the door to inconsistencies. The debate over reforming 2C:43-22 weighs fairness against judicial discretion.