The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments on whether judges should have more say in sentencing offenders, and seemed to be leaning toward broadening judicial discretion, the Los Angeles Times reported Oct. 3.

Critics say mandatory sentencing guidelines rob jurists of the power to alter sentencing based on the facts of individual cases, often result in overly harsh punishment, and have helped fill prisons with low-level drug offenders. But the U.S. Justice Department wants the mandatory minimums maintained, with Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben arguing that the alternative would be widely varying sentences for identical crimes.

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the architects of the mandatory minimums in the 1970s, said that the case before the court threatened "the end of the guidelines." But Justice Antonin Scalia said the current policy often results in overlong prison sentences. "The guidelines are only guidelines," he said. "They are advisory."

Also discussed during the hearing was the current disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences, although the justices indicated that their power to alter the current sentencing structure was limited.