STILL COMING UP SHORT

Congress long has sought a criminal sentencing system that would provide
similar punishments for similar crimes.

The system would enforce rigorous sentences for violent criminals and
chronic lawbreakers.

And it would be wise enough to grant mercy to people whose crimes and
circumstances warrant as much.

Lawmakers tinker endlessly in an attempt to attain those ideals in the
federal court system. They have not yet succeeded.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in, with rulings that simultaneously
release judges from strict compliance with mandatory sentencing guidelines
but leave the guidelines in place as a benchmark.

Last week's dual rulings appear to give judges more discretion and still
provide a framework to keep sentences from becoming too uneven.

But the rulings shouldn't be read as a huge victory for defendants.
Congress will have to move carefully to make sure sentencing doesn't become
more irrational than it has been with the guidelines enforced.

Congress passed the illogically named mandatory guidelines in 1984 in
response to outrage over sentencing disparities. The guidelines require
judges to sentence defendants within prescribed boundaries.

Apart from the guidelines, Congress has passed laws requiring minimum
sentences for crimes such as drug dealing and gun trafficking.

The Supreme Court rulings do not affect the mandatory minimum laws, which
actually are more inflexible than the guidelines. And some legal experts
think Congress will react to the rulings by swiftly requiring minimum
sentences for even more offenses.

That would be a mistake. Although mandatory guidelines and minimum
sentencing laws look good to a public who demands that legislators be tough
on crime, they also have resulted in many unreasonably harsh sentences for
first-time and nonviolent lawbreakers.

Congress would best deal with the court rulings by using them as an
opportunity to take a thoughtful look at federal sentencing. Previous laws,
passed in good faith, have had unintended consequences. If lawmakers could
learn from them, they could come closer to the coveted balance of
consistency, rigor and pragmatism.