LET FEDERAL JUDGES USE THEIR JUDGEMENT

Otherwise, Repairing a Gun Could Earn a Prison Term

Robert F. Myers of New London is by all accounts an upstanding and
law- abiding citizen. Except for that time he decided to repair a
rusting shotgun by cutting off the barrel, which nearly cost him a
lengthy prison sentence.

Fortunately for Myers, he came before a federal judge in Des Moines
for sentencing after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that
federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional. Instead of being
sentenced to two or three years in federal prison, Myers got three
months of supervised release - in effect, probation.

This is just one of the many thousands of criminal cases that will be
affected by the Supreme Court's Jan. 12 ruling striking down the
federal sentencing guidelines. The court said the guidelines, which
sought to impose uniform sentences in all cases, are unconstitutional
because they rely on facts not decided by juries. At the least, the
guidelines, which were in fact mandatory, were a misguided attempt to
set uniform standards where uniformity does not always exist.

Now the guidelines are truly guidelines, and judges may depart from
them when unique circumstances dictate, as in Myers' case. Here are
the facts, according to the court record:

More than four years ago, Myers, 44, removed 8 inches from the barrel
of a shotgun his parents had given him when he was 14. He did so
because it was rusting and he wanted to make the gun safe to use. What
Myers did not realize is that in so doing, he violated federal law,
which prohibits possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun.

It's unlikely anything would have come of his deed, except that Myers
three years later sold the shotgun to a cousin, who subsequently used
it in an assault. That led police back to Myers, who immediately and
fully cooperated with authorities.

Had he been sentenced under the mandatory sentencing guidelines, Myers
would have faced a minimum of 20 months and up to 30 months in federal
prison. U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt, operating under the
Supreme Court's decision that the guidelines are "advisory," instead
gave Myers probation. Citing Myers' cooperative attitude, his law-
abiding character, the fact that the "crime" was unintended and an
aberration, Judge Pratt concluded "that a term of imprisonment in this
case is completely unwarranted."

Surely the judge got it right. Judges must be allowed to use their
training and instincts based on real lives. If they are wrong, an
appeals court is in place to correct decisions upon review.

It is far better that judgments be made this way rather than by a
congressionally appointed commission that establishes inflexible rules
and renders judges little more than paper handlers.

To read Judge Robert W. Pratt's Jan. 26 memorandum opinion and order
in the case of Robert Francis Myers, which explain the judge's
approach to the sentencing rules, go to www.iasd.uscourts.gov/ and
find links to the opinion by date or by judge.