1/14/07
Congress should revise some of the federal mandatory sentencing laws
Spartanburg Herald Journal
Congress is set to re-examine some of its mandatory sentencing laws. It should make them more flexible, allowing judges to tailor penalties to fit the crime.
Mandatory sentences steal judgment away from judges. These laws take away judicial discretion to deal with offenders as judges deem appropriate.
That's not an unintended consequence. Mandatory sentencing laws were passed for that purpose. Politicians claimed that soft-on-crime judges were letting criminals off with a slap on the wrist. They passed the laws to force penalties they thought appropriate.
The legislation gave elected officials opportunities to appear tough and ready to enforce law and order, which is always a winner at the polls.
But one penalty doesn't always fit each instance of a crime. And sometimes mandatory sentencing laws accumulate to lead to miscarriages of justice.
A Utah judge was forced to give a low-level marijuana dealer a 55-year sentence because he owned a gun. The dealer hadn't used or even pointed the gun at anyone, but he ended up sentenced to more prison time than an airport hijacker or a rapist, according to the judge.
This is not an attempt led by the left to coddle criminals. Judges appointed by Republican presidents, including Federal Appeals Court Judge William W. Wilkins from South Carolina, who was appointed by President Reagan, are urging Congress to reconsider the laws.
Congress must also consider the disparity between mandatory prison sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Because crack is used more by poor and by black offenders, the disparity leads to much more harsh punishment for poor and minority offenders.
Mandatory sentencing laws represent an attempt by the legislative branch to micromanage the judicial branch.
Congress tends to think that one solution works for every situation around the nation. That approach has interfered with everything from community development to educational reform, and it doesn't work any better for crime.
Judges should have the discretion to sentence offenders based on the circumstances of their crime. Congress should let judges use their judgment.