Pubdate: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 Source: Times-Picayune, The (LA) Copyright: 2002 The Times-Picayune Contact: http://www.nola.com/t-p/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/848 LETTING JUDGES JUDGE As crime levels rose in the 1980s and early 1990s, legislators in Louisiana and elsewhere enacted laws mandating stiff minimum sentences for people convicted of crimes -- and particularly of drug-related offenses. One major consequence of that effort was an increase in the number of people behind bars; state figures show that the prison population rose from 25,260 to 38,000 between 1995 and 2001. Some criminals clearly belong in jail. But people convicted of comparatively minor drug offenses shouldn't face more time than some violent criminals, and users who genuinely want to get off drugs belong in rehab rather than prison. Nevertheless, some laws give judges little flexibility on how offenders should be punished. For that reason, several New Orleans criminal court judges asked the Criminal Justice Committee of the state House of Representatives to take another look at mandatory minimum sentences and other laws that reduce judges' discretion. It's worth noting that Louisiana is already moving in the right direction. Last year, state legislators showed a great deal of wisdom and courage by approving a bill that abolished mandatory minimum sentences for dozens of nonviolent first-time offenses. That bill is already showing beneficial effects. Because it eliminated a four-year mandatory sentence for heroin possession and allowed first offenders to receive probation, 122 offenders who otherwise might have gone to jail have received treatment for their addiction instead. Some mandatory minimums remain in place, though, and committee members would be wise to make a thorough review of the costs and benefits of those policies. The drive for mandatory minimum sentences grew out of the belief that some judges sentenced criminals too lightly and failed to take the nation's drug problem seriously. And in truth, it's possible that some judges will use the discretion they have more wisely than others will. Over the years, this newspaper has criticized criminal court judges who ease bond conditions set by other judges for suspects in serious crimes. It's hard to fathom why a judge would interfere in a case assigned to someone else's section. The right response to these abuses is to develop rules that discourage one judge from substituting his or her discretion for that of another judge. The trouble with mandatory minimums and other laws is that, in practice, they give judges little or no discretion at all. And when judges -- who are supposed to base their decisions on the law and the facts -- aren't allowed to take the circumstances of a case into account when sentencing an offender, something has gone seriously awry. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart