CORRECTING SENTENCES

FIVE YEARS AGO a panel of criminal justice experts crafted a corrective for
the flawed and fallible system of sentencing convicted criminals in
Massachusetts. The work of the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, led by
Judge Robert Mulligan, former chief justice of the Superior Court, was
sound. But the Legislature never ratified it, and sentencing remains an
erratic exploit.

Today the nonpartisan research group MassINC - the Massachusetts Institute
for a New Commonwealth - sponsors a public forum on sentencing guidelines
at which legal experts will promote awareness on sentencing. The time is
right for such a forum and for passage of the guidelines. Last month House
Speaker Thomas Finneran cited sentencing reform as a priority of this
legislative session. And just last week state Senator James Jajuga, a
Methuen Democrat known as a criminal justice hardliner, expressed
reservations about mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug
offenses, which would be eliminated under the guidelines.

The Sentencing Commission, including prosecutors and defense attorneys,
classified 1,800 crimes and established sensible ranges of punishment based
on the type of offense and the criminal justice history of the offender.
Crimes of violence carry stiff prison sentences while ''intermediate
sanctions'' - such as electronic monitoring - are recommended for
individuals convicted of property and nonviolent offenses.

It's a practical approach that serves both public safety and the efficient
management of criminal justice resources.

Prosecutors tag some sentence recommendations as too light.

But a recent analysis shows otherwise.

Frank Carney, executive director of the Sentencing Commission, analyzed
violent crime convictions for the 1999 fiscal year, including manslaughter
and aggravated rape, and found that 53 percent of sentences fell below the
minimum recommendations in the sentencing guidelines. A recent and
notorious case also makes that point: Superior Court Judge Maria Lopez drew
outrage last September when she sentenced a man to just five years'
probation for the kidnapping and attempted rape of a child. The sentencing
commission's grid specifies a minimum of five years' imprisonment for
assault with intent to rape a child under 14 for perpetrators with no
record of violent offenses.

Judicial accountability would also increase with passage of the sentencing
guidelines. Judges who choose to depart downward from minimum sentences,
for example, would be required to provide a written explanation for their
actions. And prosecutors would be free to appeal that departure.

While judicial independence would remain intact, as it should, the public
could discern the thinking of judges in controversial cases.

The Sentencing Commission did its best to reconcile realism and idealism
ina field that will always be subject to flaws.

The Legislature can no longer blink away this effort.