JUDGES AND JURIES

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on federal sentencing guidelines
restores some discretion to judges. On the whole, this is desirable.
But the decision is bound to touch off a new struggle between Congress
and the judiciary over who gets to control the punishment of federal
offenders. An overreaction by legislators could lead to a system that
is confusing and unfair, but in new ways.

Since 1987, federal judges have had to follow guidelines set by the
congressionally established U.S. Sentencing Commission. The main goal
was to make sentencing across the nation more uniform. But Congress
also sought to correct judges whom many members saw as too lenient. As
a result, the guidelines essentially forced judges to increase
punishment, on the basis of factors not weighed by juries.

In a 5-to-4 ruling on Wednesday, the court found this system
unconstitutional. It reasoned that the guidelines breached defendants'
Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, since they let judges go beyond
the facts established by juries.

In a second 5-to-4 ruling, the court held that the guidelines could
still be used as long as they were treated as advisory, rather than
mandatory. The resulting sentences can be appealed on the basis of
their "reasonableness."

That the justices lined up so unpredictably (and differently) in the
two rulings underscores the complexity of the issue. When the
guidelines were mandatory, they gave prosecutors enormous leverage
over the accused. Though sentences perhaps became more consistent,
they tended to be more consistently draconian.

This has proved particularly true in drug cases, in which federal
convictions have often brought lengthy prison terms. (Defendants
convicted of similar crimes under state laws have sometimes fared much
better -- an inconsistency Congress was not able to stamp out.)
Moreover, the punishments reached under federal law were often based
on thin evidence.

Not surprisingly, judges and families of offenders have complained for
years about this system, which allows so little leeway for individual
circumstances.

Making the old guidelines voluntary is probably an improvement. But it
may not be the best solution. Four of the justices, led by Justice
John Paul Stevens, urged making indictments more specific and letting
juries consider all the factors that might argue for a stronger
sentence. Yet while this approach might be more just, it could prove
too cumbersome.

Conservatives are now eager to create new sentencing requirements that
will pass constitutional muster. But Congress should move cautiously.
A solution that balances its interest in punishing criminals with the
wisdom judges accumulate would serve everyone best. Justice is rarely
a one-size-fits-all affair. The sentencing system should reflect this.