COURT OFFERS CHANCE OF SENTENCE REFORM

In a recent pair of drug-related cases, the Supreme Court ruled that
federal sentencing guidelines are advisory and judges do not have to follow
them in every case (U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan). This ruling, which
surprised many, holds both promise and danger, depending on what Congress does.

If legislators overreact and seek quick fixes, they will most likely end up
exacerbating problems, such as racial disparities, unnecessary
"federalization" of crime and the incarceration of innocent people. If they
move slowly and work together, they could pass legislation that would save
money and increase public safety.

Legislators should keep five things in mind:

* The ruling affects only federal sentencing guidelines, which are
developed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to help judges impose fair
sentences. It does not affect any statutory penalties Congress has enacted,
including mandatory minimums, which trump the guidelines and force judges
to impose often very lengthy pre-determined sentences.

* Judges will continue to apply the guidelines in most cases, so the ruling
does not create any immediate problems requiring Congress to respond.

* If legislators do respond, they should not enact any new mandatory
minimums because the consensus of criminal justice experts is they have
done much more harm than good.

* Any attempt to overhaul federal sentencing must include reform of drug
laws, which are responsible for the most egregious inequities in our
criminal justice system. Mandatory minimum sentences and federal
prosecution of low-level offenses are driving the rapid expansion of the
federal prison system. More than half of federal prisoners are drug
offenders and their incarceration costs taxpayers about $3 billion a year.

* Members of Congress need not debate reform in the dark. A growing number
of states already have reformed their drug laws, including Arizona,
California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York and Texas.
These states prove it is possible to both save money and improve public safety.

Real reform should include:

Reprioritizing resources toward high-level traffickers, violent criminals
and terrorists. Too many federal resources are wasted on low-level drug
offenses that already are illegal under state law.

Diverting non-violent offenders to drug treatment instead of prison.
Treatment is cheaper and more effective at reducing recidivism.

Reforming harsh drug laws that punish non-violent drug offenders more
severely than rapists and murderers. Congress should eliminate mandatory
minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses and direct the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to develop appropriate sentences.

Eliminating the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder
cocaine offenses. This should be done by lowering the draconian crack
penalties to equal those of powder. Congress should not increase penalties
for powder offenses.

Fixing drug conspiracy laws so offenders are punished only for the crimes
they commit, not the crimes of people they associate with. In particular,
Congress should ensure that abused or misguided women are not punished for
the offenses of their husbands and boyfriends.

Preventing people from being sent to prison because of unproven
accusations. Congress should require collaborating evidence in all drug
cases to prevent people from be convicted based solely on the word of one
person (an informant who is paid for each person convicted, a drug offender
getting a reduced sentence for testifying against others).

Repealing federal bans that deny student loans, welfare and other benefits
to former offenders. Congress should encourage -- not prevent -- drug
offenders from getting their lives back together.

If members of Congress look to the states for guidance, they can pass
bipartisan legislation to make our federal justice system fairer, cheaper
and more effective at reducing crime.