Barrett v. United States · ¶55

Just as subsection (j)’s seriousness is not lost on us, we are confident—as Congress apparently was—that it will not be lost on sentencing judges. Bound by 18 U. S. C. §3553(a) to craft a sentence that, among other considerations, reflects “the seriousness of the offense” and avoids “unwarranted sentence disparities” among similarly situated defendants, sentencing judges will doubtless recognize the relevance of a victim’s death when sentencing under subsection (j). Amicus’s worry thus strikes us as more theoretical than realistic. But if it threatens to manifest, it is not without remedy: If, in a given case, prosecutors fear that a subsection (j) sentence will dip below what subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) would otherwise guarantee, they are free to choose subsection (c)(1)(A)(i)’s low-end rigidity over subsection (j)’s high-end flexibility. See Ball, 470 U. S., at 860– 861, nn. 7–8.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.