PROSECUTORS, JUDGES ARGUE TWO SIDES ON SENTENCING

A legislative committee considering passage of sentencing guidelines for
judges heard opposing views yesterday on the effect of mandatory minimum
prison sentences, particularly for drug dealers.

At a hearing of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice, Attorney General
Tom Reilly and a host of district attorneys said they supported the
mandatory minimum sentences, while two judges and members of the defense
bar said the pre-ordained sentences fail to take into account the
individual circumstances of each case.

Superior Court Judge Robert Mulligan, who chaired the Massachusetts
Sentencing Commission's work on guideline legislation, said mandatory
sentences often are not the solution to the problem of drug abuse.

Mulligan cited a case in which the law required him to sentence an
18-year-old man with no prior criminal record to 15 years in prison for
cocaine trafficking.

He said a shorter sentence easily could have garnered the teen's attention
and steered him out of trouble.

"The law doesn't take into account whether the drugs are 90 percent pure or
2 percent pure. It doesn't take into account whether the offender has no
record or a serious violent record.

"And it doesn't take into account whether the offender was a mule for his
mother's boyfriend or was running the operation," Mulligan said.

He said reconsideration of mandatory sentences was "a moral obligation."

In support of mandatory sentences, Middlesex District Attorney Martha
Coakley said concerns about burgeoning prison populations are not good
reasons to trade away public safety.

"I don't want to be the person who has to tell a parent, 'Your child was
raped' or 'Your son was murdered' or 'Your son has died in a drunk-driving
accident,' because the commonwealth wanted to keep down the prison
population," Coakley said.

The hearing was held just three days after acting Gov. Jane Swift proposed
sweeping legislation for strict guidelines requiring harsher sentences for
a wide range of criminals.