LETTING JUDGES JUDGE

As crime levels rose in the 1980s and early 1990s, legislators in Louisiana
and elsewhere enacted laws mandating stiff minimum sentences for people
convicted of crimes -- and particularly of drug-related offenses. One major
consequence of that effort was an increase in the number of people behind
bars; state figures show that the prison population rose from 25,260 to
38,000 between 1995 and 2001.

Some criminals clearly belong in jail. But people convicted of
comparatively minor drug offenses shouldn't face more time than some
violent criminals, and users who genuinely want to get off drugs belong in
rehab rather than prison. Nevertheless, some laws give judges little
flexibility on how offenders should be punished.

For that reason, several New Orleans criminal court judges asked the
Criminal Justice Committee of the state House of Representatives to take
another look at mandatory minimum sentences and other laws that reduce
judges' discretion.

It's worth noting that Louisiana is already moving in the right direction.
Last year, state legislators showed a great deal of wisdom and courage by
approving a bill that abolished mandatory minimum sentences for dozens of
nonviolent first-time offenses.

That bill is already showing beneficial effects. Because it eliminated a
four-year mandatory sentence for heroin possession and allowed first
offenders to receive probation, 122 offenders who otherwise might have gone
to jail have received treatment for their addiction instead.

Some mandatory minimums remain in place, though, and committee members
would be wise to make a thorough review of the costs and benefits of those
policies.

The drive for mandatory minimum sentences grew out of the belief that some
judges sentenced criminals too lightly and failed to take the nation's drug
problem seriously. And in truth, it's possible that some judges will use
the discretion they have more wisely than others will.

Over the years, this newspaper has criticized criminal court judges who
ease bond conditions set by other judges for suspects in serious crimes.
It's hard to fathom why a judge would interfere in a case assigned to
someone else's section.

The right response to these abuses is to develop rules that discourage one
judge from substituting his or her discretion for that of another judge.
The trouble with mandatory minimums and other laws is that, in practice,
they give judges little or no discretion at all.

And when judges -- who are supposed to base their decisions on the law and
the facts -- aren't allowed to take the circumstances of a case into
account when sentencing an offender, something has gone seriously awry.