THE HOUSE OVERREACHES

THE HOUSE OF Representatives passed a bill last week designed to reduce
gang violence.

The so-called "Gangbusters" bill would greatly expand federal authority to
prosecute gang members, even for local activity.

It would establish mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for many
crimes, including but not limited to newly defined offenses.

These are terrible ideas that ought to be rejected if and when the Senate
considers similar legislation.

The bill's definition of gang activity represents an unwarranted
federalization of local crime.

Gang violence is a serious problem, and some gangs operate across state
lines and require federal attention.

But this law is written so broadly as to potentially include many local
crimes, which are traditionally prosecuted by the states.

Under its terms, anyone who commits or conspires in a "gang crime" --
defined to include a wide range of drug and violent felonies -- in order to
further "the activities of a criminal street gang" or gain entrance to one
can be prosecuted federally. A "criminal street gang" is defined as "a
formal or informal group" of at least three people who commit two or more
gang crimes.

And the bill would require only the most tenuous connection to any
legitimate federal interest before the matter could be handled by the
Justice Department. In other words, just about any pattern of street
violence involving people who wear the same tattoos could become a federal
matter. The predominant state role in prosecuting street crime deserves
more respect.

The bill also contains mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of federal
crimes. Early this year, the Supreme Court ruled that federal sentencing
guidelines, at least as currently written, could not bind judges because
they depended on facts found by the judge but not proven to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Given Congress's commitment over the years to limiting judicial sentencing
discretion, a legislative response that restores mandatory sentencing is
hardly a surprise.

But this would nonetheless be a disaster.

Mandatory minimums satisfy the Supreme Court's dictates, because they are
so crude that they need depend only on the facts the jury found in order to
convict. But precisely for that reason, they are far less fair and flexible
even than the already too rigid guidelines whose required imposition the
court struck down. They permit no attention to the individual circumstances
of the convicts -- except to impose harsher penalties still.

Such sentencing regimes at the state and federal levels have been
overwhelmingly harmful. Members of Congress may be keen to deprive federal
judges of the new discretion the Supreme Court has given them. But this is
the worst possible answer.