"Defendants are being evaluated based on numerical grid without any aggravating circumstances being considered. The effect has been to transfer the disparity from the judge to the prosecutor allowing for a great deal of leeway on indictments"
About this Quote
A numerical grid promises neutrality the way a spreadsheet promises truth: clean lines, no drama, no bias. Greene punctures that fantasy. His target is the technocratic allure of sentencing guidelines that pretend justice can be reduced to inputs and outputs, while quietly smuggling discretion in through a side door.
The phrase "without any aggravating circumstances being considered" is doing double work. On its face, it critiques rigidity: a system so standardized it can miss the human facts that make one case meaningfully different from another. Underneath, it’s a warning about what happens when judges are handcuffed by formula. If the judge can’t adjust based on nuance, someone else will decide which facts matter before the case ever reaches the bench.
That’s the quote’s real bite: "transfer the disparity from the judge to the prosecutor". Greene isn’t claiming prosecutors suddenly become villains; he’s describing an institutional physics problem. Guidelines narrow judicial discretion, but prosecutors still control charging decisions, plea offers, and what gets put on the table as the official story. When outcomes hinge on indictments, "leeway" becomes power, and power becomes the new hiding place for unequal treatment.
Context matters: Greene, as a federal judge, was speaking from the era when sentencing reform and mandatory guidelines were sold as an antidote to inconsistency. His subtext is that consistency achieved by relocating discretion isn’t reform; it’s camouflage. The system can look fairer on paper while becoming less transparent in practice, because the most consequential choices move upstream, away from public hearings and reasoned opinions, into bargaining rooms and charging memos.
The phrase "without any aggravating circumstances being considered" is doing double work. On its face, it critiques rigidity: a system so standardized it can miss the human facts that make one case meaningfully different from another. Underneath, it’s a warning about what happens when judges are handcuffed by formula. If the judge can’t adjust based on nuance, someone else will decide which facts matter before the case ever reaches the bench.
That’s the quote’s real bite: "transfer the disparity from the judge to the prosecutor". Greene isn’t claiming prosecutors suddenly become villains; he’s describing an institutional physics problem. Guidelines narrow judicial discretion, but prosecutors still control charging decisions, plea offers, and what gets put on the table as the official story. When outcomes hinge on indictments, "leeway" becomes power, and power becomes the new hiding place for unequal treatment.
Context matters: Greene, as a federal judge, was speaking from the era when sentencing reform and mandatory guidelines were sold as an antidote to inconsistency. His subtext is that consistency achieved by relocating discretion isn’t reform; it’s camouflage. The system can look fairer on paper while becoming less transparent in practice, because the most consequential choices move upstream, away from public hearings and reasoned opinions, into bargaining rooms and charging memos.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Harold
Add to List


