SENTENCING PROCESS SHOULD BE OVERHAULED

The plan to abolish mandatory minimum sentences is a sound idea that
is long overdue. This practice is unfair and it handcuffs judges by
not allowing them to use discretion in certain cases.

The major problem with the current sentencing process is that state
and federal mandatory minimum prison terms leave little room to
consider differences among crimes and criminals.

The American Bar Association, which conducted a yearlong study on the
impact of mandatory minimum sentences, said that more criminals are
behind bars under this system, but it is unclear if we are safer as a
result.

Statistics revealed that in 1982, state and federal governments spent
$9 billion on jails and prisons and in 1999, they spent $49 million,
an increase of more than 400 percent.

The likelihood of someone going to jail has also tripled, to 6.6
percent between 1974 and 2001.

These statistics reveal that the mandatory minimum sentencing rules
are doing nothing more than overcrowding our jails.

Perhaps if these standards didn't exist, it would allow judges to send
people convicted of drug offenses to drug treatment facilities for
their first offense.

Some new guidelines must be set to ensure that the criminals less
deserving of jail time are given a chance, and those hard-line
criminals are put away for long periods of time.

U.S. Supreme Court justices, including Anthony Kennedy, have long
argued that the practice is unfair and needed to be overhauled.

The ABA, which has 400,000 members, will vote in August on whether to
adopt the new recommendations as official positions of the
organization. If it passes, it won't become law, but it could put
pressure on Congress and states to make modifications in existing law.

For the courts' and the country's sake, we certainly hope that they will.