LET JUDGES JUDGE

The U.S. Supreme Court showed good sense - and uncommon courage - in
giving judges more sway in sentencing drug dealers to prison.

In two cases, the court ruled that a judge could veer from hard-line
drug sentencing guidelines that have drawn criticism as racist and
unthinking. A trial judge, the high court found, should have the
discretion to mete out sentences that vary from harsh sentences set
by federal sentencing guidelines.

The major case involved crack cocaine, which can draw 100 times the
prison time compared with convictions related to powder cocaine. By
one count, 82 percent of the defendants sentenced in federal court
for dealing crack are African American while only 27 percent of those
selling the white powder.

The court steered away from this unpleasant racial reality by
focusing on another issue. Judges should have the right to decide,
within reason, on handing down sentences - and don't need to follow
ironclad formulas, a seven-justice majority said.

It's a message that some voters and politicians don't like. No one
much cares about an judicial unfairness when it comes to drug
dealers. And the image of soft-headed judges has led to a string of
lock-'em-up rules such as California's rigid "three strikes" law.

The high court's ruling goes against such thinking, but it's no brief
for criminals. Instead, the decision is a reminder that judges should
play an important role and don't simply hand out jail time according
to a pre-set formula.

Coming next, possibly this week, could be a decision by a federal
sentencing agency on shortening terms for some 20,000 prisoners
convicted of crack dealing.

The high court's decision may surprise observers who think it's swung
too far right. That's not the case when it comes to judicial
discretion and defendant rights.