MANDATORY MINIMUMS

The News-Journal's Jan. 18 editorial "Mandatory sentences no more" correctly
noted that judges now have more sentencing discretion under federal
sentencing guidelines after the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling.
Unfortunately, that decision leaves intact egregious federal mandatory
minimums, which resulted in the dramatic sentencing the editorial cited in
the case of Weldon Angelos. Mandatory minimum sentences are established by
congressional statutes and are separate from the now advisory federal
guidelines. Judges, therefore, still do not have the authority to prevent
sentences such as that of Angelos, who received a mandatory minimum sentence
of 55 years in federal prison for a first-time conviction of marijuana sales
with concealed firearms.

As campaign communications director for Families Against Mandatory Minimums,
I know that mandatory minimums require harsh, automatic prison terms for
those convicted of certain offenses, most often involving drugs. Judges are
forbidden from considering the individual's role or other important factors,
like the severity of the offense. Because judges cannot fit the punishment
to the crime and the offender under mandatory sentencing laws, tens of
thousands of low-level offenders like Weldon Angelos fill federal prisons.

While it is right to applaud the restoration of judicial discretion, the
struggle for fair and effective federal sentencing policies is far from
over.

LAURA JONES, Washington, D.C.