CRIMINAL CODE REQUIRES MERELY MODEST REFORMS

In criminal sentencing, firmness and common sense ought to be the dual
watchwords.

The subject comes up yet again because of a highly publicized Montgomery
case in which a first-time drug offender and mother of two was released
from prison last week after serving nearly five years of what originally
was a sentence of life-without-

parole.

In 1998, Theresa Wilson was convicted of selling a morphine mixture to an
undercover police officer. Under Alabama's tough-on-crime sentencing
guidelines, Ms. Wilson was punished with the life sentence.

Clearly, the punishment looked too Draconian for the crime, especially for
a first offense. A state appeals court overturned the sentence last week --
and Ms. Wilson and her attorney were widely quoted advocating more
discretion for judges.

It is true that Ms. Wilson's case is far from unique these days. All across
the country, petty offenders of anti-narcotics laws are filling prisons to
the brim, even though they pose only a moderate danger to society. The
overburdened prison system stems directly from an ill-considered, though
well-motivated, reaction to burgeoning crime rates.

Nevertheless, it would be foolish to overreact in the opposite direction.
There's nothing wrong with taking a firm stand against crime, and there's
nothing wrong with giving judges only a little leeway in sentencing. Part
of the problem with crime rates in the 1970s and 1980s grew from judges
abusing their discretion to impose sentences far more lenient than
legislatures intended.

What's obviously needed is a reassessment by legislatures, including
Alabama's, that does a more sober job of matching sentences to the severity
of the crimes. Part of that sober assessment will recognize that all crimes
are in some ways unique, and that only judges are in the perfect position
to take into account the particular exigencies of each individual crime.

In other words, judges ought to be given some discretion -- but not a lot.
Yes, the Legislature ought to allow a range of sentences for most crimes,
especially non-violent ones. But the range should be narrow. Criminals must
not be given the impression that they can get away with breaking the law
merely by gaming» the system and taking advantage of a liberal judge.

Again, there's nothing wrong with throwing the book at violent offenders.
But society as well as non-violent offenders may well benefit from
alternative sentencing options, including creative ones, that make
rehabilitation possible before either violence or rage at the system
becomes too ingrained.

In Alabama, fortunately, an official Sentencing Commission, created by the
Legislature, is examining just these kinds of issues and is expected to
make recommendations next year for reform. We can only hope that the
commission keeps common sense in mind, and that the Legislature follows the
commission's lead.

As Attorney General Bill Pryor put it, We need to be tough on crime, but we
also need to be smart on crime.» Mr. Pryor is quite correct that the two
ideas are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing instead.