RESTORING SENSE TO COURT SENTENCING

Mandatory Minimum Penalties Pose a Hindrance to Justice, With Little
Benefit Against Crime.

Mandatory minimum sentences have long been useful for politicians
courting voters. Federal and state officials alike have established
law-and-order reputations by curtailing judicial discretion and
requiring stiff, standardized punishments for drug trafficking and
other offenses. Here's the problem: The crackdowns appear to do more
harm and less good than the old laws. In the drug war, where they are
most often used, a RAND Corp. analysis found them less effective and
more expensive than expanded drug treatment and law enforcement under
the previous sentencing. Their contributions instead seem to be
soaring prison populations and costs; diversion of money from proven
crime-fighting methods; an unbalanced judicial system in which
discretion, and hence power, has shifted to prosecutors in their plea
bargains; and courts with diminished capacity for fair, appropriate
justice.

That's according to, among other sources, a report this week from the
American Bar Association. Other critics include U.S. District Judge
James Turk, who presides in the Western Virginia District, and several
U.S. Supreme Court justices.

With no evidence that mandatory sentencing is an improvement, their
concerns should be heeded. Justice requires that punishments fit the
crimes. Rigidly applied penalties would be fair only if crime and
prosecution were uniform. They are not. Reports abound of minor
players serving decades while kingpins plea bargain their way to less
time.

Without discretion, judges cannot rectify such inevitable injustices.
Virginia, to its credit, has been relatively restrained about
mandatory sentences. It turned back some of then-Gov. Jim Gilmore's
most draconian proposals. And when the crimes of former Henry County
Administrator Sid Clower prompted a new proposed mandatory sentence,
the General Assembly wisely balked.

Such wisdom should be applied to mandatory minimums now in effect.