MAKING JAIL TERMS FOR DRUGS FIT CRIME

WASHINGTON -- When a bit player in a drug deal gets nearly 20 years in
prison, something's wrong with the system.

That's what then-President Bill Clinton concluded when he commuted the
sentence of Derrick Curry and 20 others serving lengthy mandatory prison
sentences for drug crimes.

Mr. Curry's case provides a good example of a wrong that plagues our
criminal justice system -- a rigid sentencing system that incarcerates
federal drug offenders for fixed, lengthy terms, regardless of the
circumstances of their cases. And Mr. Curry's case was full of circumstances.

For six months, Mr. Curry, a former Prince George's County high school
basketball star and second-year college student, was involved as a delivery
boy in a five-year crack cocaine conspiracy. He delivered drugs twice to a
friend and made no money for the service. An FBI agent referred to him as a
mere "flunky" in the distribution chain. Though Mr. Curry's involvement was
limited both in time and substance, he was the only one of the 28 persons
arrested who was convicted of the total conspiracy violation. One dealer
received a 10-year sentence, the friend Mr. Curry assisted a life sentence.

Mr. Clinton's commutations highlight this major defect in U.S. drug
sentencing laws: Only the type of drug and its weight determine sentences.
Judges must ignore all other facts of a case, such as the role the
defendant played and the outlook for rehabilitation. No end-of-the-term
commutations can solve this defect for the 63,621 men and women now serving
federal drug sentences, and for those who may break the drug laws.

It falls on members of the new Congress to reform the draconian mandatory
sentencing laws their predecessors hastily adopted in 1986 in an effort to
stop illegal drug use. Congress should return to judges the power to
consider all facts of the case and choose sentences based on realistic
guidelines that are more appropriate to each case. These guidelines,
already in place, assure that offenders will be punished fairly.

Congress should also make the "safety valve" retroactive. Adopted in 1994,
the safety valve gives lighter sentences to select first-time drug
offenders. Unfortunately, Congress precluded those already serving
mandatory terms from using the safety valve; about 487 inmates who would
have qualified for it remain in prison.

Finally, Congress should consider alternatives to incarceration, like drug
treatment. As the 1997 RAND study concluded, treatment of heavy users is
eight times more cost-effective than long sentences in removing cocaine
from the market.

Mr. Clinton has righted some wrongs with his gifts of freedom and made a
small but courageous step toward recognizing the need for sensible drug
sentencing laws.

Now President Bush and the new Congress need to exhibit a compassionate
conservatism in the criminal justice system and unshackle judges from the
chains of mandatory sentences.

Let judges evaluate each case and prescribe punishment to fit the
particular crime. Compassionately, we can return fairness to sentencing
while keeping our streets safe. Conservatively, we can reduce government
spending on excessive incarceration, directing monies instead to
appropriate sentencing and more cost-effective alternatives to jail.