PROBLEM IS D.A.'S USE OF LAW

To the Editor of THE EAGLE:-

Alan Chartock misses the point when he claims that "the D.A. is doing his
job and the fault lies not with him, but with the law and the Legislature
that passed it." ("Petition makes valuable point," Aug. 27). The job of the
D.A. is to seek justice in the application of the law. The D.A. can, and
apparently has chosen to, forego prosecution of assault and battery
charges in the case of Mr. Carnute who admitted to stabbing Mr. Adornetto
on the day of his death. The D.A. can, and apparently has chosen to,
dismiss the school zone charges for the defendants who are willing to
testify for the prosecution in the Great Barrington sting operation.

By use of the same prosecutorial discretion, the D.A. can also choose to
prosecute any of the Great Barrington defendants just on distribution
charges without the school zone charge that carries the two-year mandatory
minimum. Those with clean records, charged with selling small quantities of
marijuana, would likely agree to suspended sentences with long probationary
periods including drug testing, counseling and community service simply
because they are staring at a possible two-year jail sentence. That's how
most district attorneys across the state leverage plea bargains in this
type of case. If the defendant screws up while on probation, he or she can
be sent to jail. The streets are cleaned-up for a fraction of the cost in
dollars and young lives. Chartock misses the point again when he says that
everyone should be treated equally under the law, as if "equality"
justifies an unreasonably harsh sentence. The point is that no first-time
offender charged with selling small quantities of marijuana should be sent
to jail for two years whether the defendant comes from Pittsfield or
southern Berkshire County. The real problem here is not the school zone
law's broad sweep, nor even its mandatory minimum sentence provisions. The
real problem here is our district attorney's wholesale application of the
school zone law without regard to the facts of each case or the record of
each defendant. The law was written in the 1980s as a political response to
the perceived, if not actual, failure of judges to hand out harsh
sentences, when needed. However, that does not mean that harsh sentences
are needed in every case. By taking sentencing discretion from judges and
handing it to district attorneys across the state, the Legislature placed
its faith in the district attorneys to apply the law judiciously. Most
have. Our D.A. needs to distinguish those cases where serious jail-time is
needed, from those cases where alternatives are effective.

IRA J. KAPLAN

Great Barrington

The writer is a former Berkshire Assistant District Attorney.