RETHINK SENTENCING LAWS

Legislators love mandatory sentencing laws, which give the impression of a
hard-nosed stance on crime, always handy at election time. But the
long-term effects of some of these laws, particularly those dealing with
drug crimes, plainly have not been beneficial.

The recent case of Theresa Wilson, initially sentenced to life in prison
for a first-time drug offense involving a drug sale of $150, is an example.

Because of the amount of morphine involved, a mandatory sentencing law
kicked in and the judge in her trial had no discretion in sentencing her.
The fact that she clearly was not any sort of big-time drug dealer and not
any serious threat to society was not a factor, and that is simply bad
public policy.

Filling prisons with drug offenders whose cases are small in scale doesn't
make much sense. Lock up the big dealers, sure, but why incarcerate for
long periods of time - and at great public expense - those convicted of
lesser offenses? Surely drug treatment and alternative sentences are a much
better way to go.

"The law has to acknowledge and make important distinctions between
different types of cases," noted Attorney General Bill Pryor in touting the
work of the Sentencing Commission, which should offer recommendations to
the Legislature next year.

Exactly. Sentencing that bears some correlation to the gravity of the crime
and the danger of the offender to society is what the state needs, not more
shortsighted mandatory sentences that rob judges of discretion and create
injustices.