Pubdate: Wed, 12 Dec 2007
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 2007 The Baltimore Sun Company
Contact:  http://www.baltimoresun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/37
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?244 (Sentencing - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Sentencing+Commission
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/crack+cocaine
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/coke.htm (Cocaine)

SENSIBLE JUDGMENTS

With a welcome dose of common sense, the U.S. Supreme Court has made 
it clear that federal sentencing guidelines are advisory, not 
mandatory, and that a judge is still free to exercise discretion, 
depending on the circumstances of the case. The court's reiteration 
of the principle that judges should use their judgment is 
particularly appropriate in drug cases, where mandatory minimum 
sentences are often unnecessarily harsh and disparate punishments 
involving crack and powder cocaine are especially glaring.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission's unanimous vote yesterday in favor of 
a retroactive review of many of these sentences should help restore 
some fairness, but it comes after too many people have already served 
too much time. Congress needs to enact more comprehensive relief.

The guidelines that went into effect in 1987 were meant to address 
widely uneven sentences, particularly among racial and ethnic groups, 
but they helped exacerbate the problem. Viewing different forms of 
cocaine as more or less potent and dangerous sent many urban, 
minority crack users and sellers to prison for longer terms than 
their mostly white counterparts who were using and dealing powder 
cocaine. Many judges who departed from the guidelines - usually 
offering more leniency - were slapped down by appellate courts.

In two decisions announced this week, a 7-2 majority of the Supreme 
Court agreed that sentencing judges should have more latitude. The 
majority reiterated that trial judges can base their sentences on a 
number of factors and that appellate courts should not think that 
deviating from the guidelines is unreasonable. That was found to be 
especially true in one case where the trial judge's disagreement with 
the crack-powder cocaine disparity was a key reason for the deviation.

The court majority's view on that issue was reinforced by the 
commission's vote yesterday to apply its earlier recommendation to 
reduce average sentences for crack users retroactively to about 
19,500 inmates, including 279 in Maryland. But even as the commission 
has taken important steps to amend the guidelines, Congress needs to 
adjust the drug laws to which the guidelines apply.  The House and 
Senate have been slow to move on bipartisan bills to change the 
100-to-1 ratio for amounts of cocaine powder compared with crack that 
qualify for mandatory minimum sentences. This week's actions by the 
high court and the commission make Congress' failure to end that 
disparity even more inexcusable. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake