I've got some good news...

At least, I think it is. In what most observers agree is a far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that

any factor that increases a criminal sentence, except for prior convictions, [has] to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Many sentencing schemes allow or require judges to impose longer sentences based on all sorts of criteria, including the defendant's background and the nature and severity of his crime.

That as reported in the New York Times for June 27.

The case involved Ralph Blakely, who pleaded guilty to kidnapping his estranged wife in a bizarre plan to convince her to come back to him,

which carried a penalty of 53 months. A judge increased the sentence to 90 months based on his finding that Mr. Blakely had acted with "deliberate cruelty," which the defendant had not admitted and no jury had found. The Supreme Court said the imposition of additional time violated Mr. Blakely's right to a jury trial.

Simply put, Blakely said "I admit I'm guilty of this" and the judge said "well, I've decided you're also guilty of this other, even though it's never been shown to be so in any court." That, the Supreme Court found, was beyond the judge's authority and unconstitutional.

Objections to the ruling seemed to be based mostly on the hassle factor: the possible necessity of having to review a large number of existing sentences and the fact that it would appear to gut federal sentencing guidelines. Others griped that having to have a jury make a finding of fact with regard to aggravating factors would be "impractical."

Well, frankly, so the hell what? Is justice supposed to be based on convenience? When did it become acceptable to allow for unconstitutional powers and injustice because justice is a hassle?

Oh, yeah. 9/11 "changed everything." Stick it.

Of all people, it was Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, who nailed it. He said that

practical considerations must take a back seat to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to a jury trial. "Our decision cannot turn," Justice Scalia wrote, "on whether or to what degree trial by jury impairs the efficiency or fairness of criminal justice."

Footnote: Just to be clear, the decision does not affect sentencing guidelines that allow or require judges to impose lesser sentences based on mitigating factors.