FOR JUSTICE, THEORETICALLY

In theory, federal sentencing guidelines were the answer to an arbitrary
justice system whose punishments varied widely from courthouse to
courthouse. The courts were supposed to take into account the background of
the criminal and details of the crime - whether a weapon was used, the
extent of the victim's loss. The guidelines bestowed favor on defendants
who acknowledged responsibility and cooperated with the government. They
tacked on prison time for those who had acted as ringleaders or abused a
position of trust.

In theory, the guidelines were good. But in practice, they didn't always work.

Sometimes, they allowed ridiculously harsh sentences for nonviolent
offenders. A first-time federal offender, for instance, faced a minimum
10-year sentence for possessing $5,000 worth of crack cocaine.

Yet at the same time, the guidelines didn't stop ridiculously lenient
sentences for well-heeled defendants.

Birmingham has had a front-row seat to some of the abuses of the sentencing
guidelines. Remember the bank embezzler, facing 18 to 24 months under the
guidelines, who initially got an eight-hour sentence? Remember the parade
of HealthSouth executives - including former chief financial officers - who
dodged jail time even though they'd facilitated one of the biggest frauds
in U.S. history?

It's no wonder the guidelines failed to inspire confidence in the federal
justice system - or that many cheers went up last week when the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled the federal sentencing system unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court concluded that judges aren't bound to follow the
sentencing guidelines, but are only required to consult them as they mete
out punishments to criminals. The decision said the new approach will
"avoid excessive sentencing disparities while maintaining flexibility
sufficient to individualize sentences where necessary."

Which sounds good - like the sentencing guidelines - in theory.

In practice, though, the punishments coming out of court systems weren't
particularly consistent or fair even with the supposedly mandatory
sentencing guidelines. Giving judges more discretion may serve the ends of
justice in some cases, but it is not likely to result overall in more
consistency and more fairness in the court system.

This places a bigger burden on lawmakers to make sure criminal punishments
are reasonable to start with - and on courts to make sure sentences are
judiciously imposed.

The guidelines were flawed, no doubt about that. But the problems they were
designed to address still exist - and still need to be solved in the
interest of justice.