Pubdate: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 Source: Gadsden Times, The (AL) Copyright: 2004 The Gadsden Times Contact: http://www.gadsdentimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1203 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) REVIEWING HABITUAL OFFENDER LAW 2000 ammendment argued in court The Alabama Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the case of an Alabama man in prison for life without parole under the state's habitual offender law. His lawyers asked that his case be reviewed so that a judge could determine if his sentence should be lightened. Montgomery attorney Bryan Stevenson argued lawmakers wanted to relieve prison overcrowding when they passed an ammendment to let judges review old habitual offender cases. He says it made a 2000 ammendment allowing lighter sentences in current habitual offender cases retroactive. While the 2000 ammendment hasn't been challenged in court, the Alabama Attorney General's office says the 2001 ammendment should be thrown out because it is vague and confusing. The 2001 ammendment allows the sentencing or presiding judge to apply the 2000 ammendment to old cases in "consideration of early parole of each non-violent convicted offender based on evaluations performed by the Department of Corrections and approved by the Board of Pardons and Paroles and submitted to the court." The parole board would still make decisions on parole, but the judge would make the decision on whether or not the sentence in the case should be changed from life without parole to life. Stevenson, director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a non-profit firm representing poor people, says in the three years since the legislation passed, "not a single soul" it was intended to affect has had a case reviewed. The decision in this case, involving prisoner Junior Mack Kirby, could affect more than 300 other inmates in Alabama who were sentenced to life without parole between 1980 and 2000. The state argues there are no standards in the ammendment as to what constitutes a non-violent offender, and that the ammendment gives judges the responsibility for parole. The latter argument just doesn't fly. The judge would review the portion of the case that is under his authority to begin with - the sentencing. The judge could make an inmate eligible for parole, but it will still be up to the parole board to decide if parole is appropriate. Parole would not be automatic. For decades there have been stories of inmates locked up for the rest of their lives when their criminal histories don't seem to merit that punishment. Applying the new law to old cases as the ammendment allows would set up the opportunity for judges to review and perhaps make the sentences better fit the crimes. It's time the law be applied as the lawmakers intended. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin