MORE REFORM FOR DRUG LAWS

Legislature Should Allow Judges More Freedom In Sentencing

Despite some reforms, Michigan's drug laws remain among the country's
harshest -- needlessly so. Legislators making New Year's resolutions should
put changing those overly punitive rules toward the top of their to-do lists.

Current sentencing guidelines don't discriminate between small-time street
hustlers and the most heinous kingpins. Lawmakers should change that,
allowing judges as much leeway in sentencing drug offenders as they have in
jailing violent criminals.

The House this month is scheduled to hold hearings on two reform bills
sponsored by Rep. William McConico, D-Detroit. Sen. William Van
Regenmorter, R-Georgetown Township, chair of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, should take the lead in the Senate. Four years ago Mr. Van
Regenmorter helped change the state's most draconian drug law. When the
Legislature reconvenes, Mr. Van Regenmorter should encourage his colleagues
to finish the job by relaxing other excessive minimum sentencing requirements.

The restrictions on judicial discretion date mostly from 1978. As a result
of changes that year, the only factor that judges can use in determining
sentences is the amount of cocaine or heroin involved in a crime. The most
severe of these 1978 rules, the 650 Lifer Law, stipulated that anyone
convicted of delivering or intending to deliver 650 grams (about 1.4
pounds) or more of cocaine or heroin would stay in jail for life without
parole. A 1987 law further tied judges' hands by requiring them to sentence
those convicted of multiple drug charges consecutively rather than
concurrently, unnecessarily piling years upon years behind bars.

In 1998 the Legislature wisely revised the 650 Lifer Law to make some
prisoners eligible for parole in 15 years. About 24 of the 200 people
currently in Michigan prisons qualify for that early release. Only one has
actually left prison. That small number isn't necessarily evidence of
misjudgment by the parole system, but is cause for the Legislature to check
on why more eligible prisoners haven't benefited.

In the meantime, lawmakers should look at broader revisions. Mr. McConico's
bills would help judges reserve the law's harshest judgments for the worst
offenders. Currently, judges can depart from sentencing guidelines for drug
offenders -- violent or not -- only for "substantial and compelling" reasons.

Judges have considerably more leeway when it comes to other offenses such
as armed robbery and assault. There, they can factor in a defendant's
criminal history, role in the offense, potential for rehabilitation and
other mitigating circumstances. Mr. McConico's legislation would allow
judges to consider those same factors in sentencing drug criminals. In
addition, the legislation would relax requirements for consecutive
sentencing, confining that punishment to individuals at the highest levels
of the drug-dealing distribution chain.

Too often under the present system, big players can trade information for
lighter sentences, leaving low-level figures holding the bag and doing the
time. Finally, the bills would end mandatory lifetime probation for
low-level drug offenders, a provision that needlessly ties up the legal
system and doesn't apply to some violent criminals.

For non-violent drug offenders with no criminal pasts, rehabilitation and
probation are sometimes far more effective than prison. Mr. McConico's
bills would tilt the scales back in that direction. Doing so would relieve
the burden on the corrections system.

That is not to be naive about the prison population. Indeed, the state has
an obligation to make sure that dangerous individuals remain locked up. But
more latitude for judges is in order, too, along with public vigilance over
their use of it.