SUPREME COURT'S SENSIBLE CHANGES TO SENTENCING

The vote was close, but the U.S. Supreme Court reminded Congress this
week that it is a co-equal branch of government.

Although federal judges must consult sentencing guidelines approved by
the legislative branch, the justices ruled, they are not required to
apply them. Even so, the court said, federal judges should apply the
guidelines and deviate from them only when the circumstances clearly
call for it. That's fine, because that's what judges are supposed to
do -- apply good judgment to individual cases.

Congress enacted the sentencing guidelines in the 1980s for two
reasons, to bring uniformity in punishment for different people
committing the same type of crimes and to impose stiffer penalties.

A commission was set up to devise rules that judges were required to
apply in sentencing those convicted of federal crimes. The rules laid
out the range of punishment for various crimes and factors judges had
to consider, such as a convicted defendant's involvement in other crimes.

But the sentencing structure created its own problems. Defense lawyers
and some federal judges have complained for years that the rigidity of
the guidelines sometimes required sentences far harsher than dictated
by justice in some individual cases. The other, constitutional problem
was that the guidelines required judges to increase a sentence for a
convicted defendant on the basis of information that had not been
presented to the jury that actually found him or her guilty.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 solution represents a compromise, one that
might not satisfy Congress. But the compromise makes sense -- federal
judges must take the guidelines seriously but can deviate where there
is good reason to do. Again, that's what judges do -- they are not
supposed to be robots mechanically dispensing formulaic justice, but
applying it in an even-handed way in the messiness of real life.

But the guidelines really must be taken seriously by the judges. Like
them or not, the guidelines were enacted through a process approved by
that part of government elected by the people, and they should be
taken into account by judges. The Supreme Court seems to agree, for
while it said the guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, it also said
that if a judge decides to deviate from the guidelines in a particular
case, then the decision will be subject to appeal.

The architect of the compromise was Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote
in the majority opinion that it would "help avoid excessive sentencing
disparities while maintaining flexibility sufficient to individualize
sentences where necessary."

More simply, the goal of the guidelines will be preserved, as will the
spirit of justice.