SENTENCING LAW PROMOTES INJUSTICE

To the Editor of THE EAGLE:- There is nothing "even-handed" or "fair" about
mandatory sentencing. Seeking mandatory two-year jail sentences and
life-long criminal records for first-time offenders denies those prosecuted
their right to judicial procedure. Anyone punished so severely deserves to
have their case considered individually. In his press release, District
Attorney Capeless works at vilifying a group of young people who showed bad
judgment. He wants us to believe that they should be grouped with "dealers"
of heroin, LSD and cocaine. Yet, surely he is familiar with the White House
study that asserts "In general, marijuana sellers continue to be young
users who sell to a network of friends and associates. Marijuana sellers
usually do not deal heroin or cocaine." Kids selling to each other should
receive consequences that serve as a wake-up call and change their
behavior. But unfair sentencing has the potential for being hugely
destructive to the young people and families involved. If the actions of
the youth involved are as abhorrent as Mr. Capeless would have us believe,
surely these kids will receive appropriate consequences as determined by a
judge on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, where is the statistical data
supporting the effectiveness of the mandatory school zone sentencing law? A
Boston University Study on the school zone law states: "It appears from the
study findings that the school zone statute (a) does not make the areas
around schools particularly safe for children; (b) cannot reasonably be
expected to do so; and (c) perhaps as a result, is not used by prosecutors
in a way calculated to move dealing away from schools. Instead the law
operates generally to raise the penalty level for drug dealing and does so
in ways that are unpredictable for defendants." In other words, the law has
proven ineffective and is not being used as it was originally intended.

Some would say that because others have had to go to jail in similar
circumstances, these kids should too. But past suffering does not mean we
cannot choose to change our course. As we educate ourselves to the
unfairness, ineffectiveness and destructiveness of mandatory sentencing, we
must work for legislative changes. Several local and state politicians
assert the need for such changes. But are we willing to sacrifice the kids
caught in the middle while changes are being sought?

I applaud the DA's feelings of responsibility for protecting our young
people. But I believe that this protection includes promoting positive
changes through fair sentencing, in the hope that kids on the wrong path
will be guided towards positive changes.

The course of mandatory sentencing, that Mr. Capeless is committed to,
promotes injustice.

Fairness demands that consequences be in proportion to misdeeds and that
sentencing be decided on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory sentencing is
flawed and yet our current DA perseveres in applying it indiscriminately.
Is this something our community should be willing to support?

Christine Ward, Great Barrington, May 13, 05