Pubdate: Sat, 11 May 2002
Source: Montgomery Advertiser (AL)
Copyright: 2002sThe Advertiser Co.
Contact:  http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1088

RETHINK SENTENCING LAWS

Legislators love mandatory sentencing laws, which give the impression of a 
hard-nosed stance on crime, always handy at election time. But the 
long-term effects of some of these laws, particularly those dealing with 
drug crimes, plainly have not been beneficial.

The recent case of Theresa Wilson, initially sentenced to life in prison 
for a first-time drug offense involving a drug sale of $150, is an example.

Because of the amount of morphine involved, a mandatory sentencing law 
kicked in and the judge in her trial had no discretion in sentencing her. 
The fact that she clearly was not any sort of big-time drug dealer and not 
any serious threat to society was not a factor, and that is simply bad 
public policy.

Filling prisons with drug offenders whose cases are small in scale doesn't 
make much sense. Lock up the big dealers, sure, but why incarcerate for 
long periods of time - and at great public expense - those convicted of 
lesser offenses? Surely drug treatment and alternative sentences are a much 
better way to go.

"The law has to acknowledge and make important distinctions between 
different types of cases," noted Attorney General Bill Pryor in touting the 
work of the Sentencing Commission, which should offer recommendations to 
the Legislature next year.

Exactly. Sentencing that bears some correlation to the gravity of the crime 
and the danger of the offender to society is what the state needs, not more 
shortsighted mandatory sentences that rob judges of discretion and create 
injustices.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth