END MANDATORY DRUG SENTENCE MINIMUMS

A Return To Judicial Discretion Is Humane And Will Lower Corrections Costs.

Former Gov. William Milliken is big enough to acknowledge that he's made a
mistake.

And last week he sent a statement to news outlets around the state
admitting a big one.

"As governor I signed a bill -- the so-called 650 lifer law -- that created
mandatory minimum drug sentences that are among the harshest in the nation.
... I have since come to realize that the provisions of the law have led to
terrible injustices and that signing it was a mistake -- an overly
punishing and cruel response that gave no discretion to a sentencing judge,
even for extenuating circumstances," Milliken wrote.

He is choosing now to confess his error because two pieces of legislation
in the Michigan House would repeal mandatory drug sentences and replace
them with sentencing guidelines -- a switch that would give judges much
greater discretion when sentencing drug offenders.

Milliken resurrects the case of a woman named Karen Shook, a drug addict
whose crime involved introducing undercover officers to her supplier. She
wound up being charged with delivery and conspiracy to deliver cocaine,
both with an automatic mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.

Although Shook successfully completed addiction treatment and helped police
in the investigation, she still was sentenced to 20 years. Milliken writes
that taxpayers will spend a half-million dollars to keep her behind bars
and her three children have grown up without her.

House bills 5394 and 5395 would make it possible for low-level offenders
like Shook to receive earlier parole review. According to Milliken, the
Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Michigan Association of Drug Court
Professionals and Families Against Mandatory Minimums all are backing these
bills.

These bills are certainly preferable to the language of a proposal that
failed to get on the November ballot that would have sent non- violent
first-time offenders into treatment instead of to jail. Although we believe
the sentiments of the unsuccessful proposal -- that it is more humane to
treat drug addicts than to jail them -- are noble, the proposal would have
taken the teeth out of drug court programs that rely on the threat of jail
to get many to participate.

In an election year, lawmakers are often afraid of appearing soft on crime.

But we hope that, when the Legislature returns to work after the election,
lawmakers will pass these bills into law.