LET JUDGES DO THEIR JOBS

I have served as a federal judge for 13 years. Having reached retirement
age, I now have the option of continuing to be a judge for the rest of
my life, with a reduced workload, or returning to private practice.
Although I find my work to be interesting and challenging, I have
decided to join the growing number of federal judges who retire to
join the private sector.

When I became a federal judge, I accepted the fact that I would be
paid much less than I could earn in private practice; judges make less
than second-year associates at many law firms, and substantially less
than a senior Major League umpire. I believed I would be compensated
by the satisfaction of serving the public good =E2=80=94 the administration
of justice. In recent years, however, this sense has been replaced by
the distress I feel at being part of a sentencing system that is
unnecessarily cruel and rigid.

For most of our history, our system of justice operated on the premise
that justice in sentencing is best achieved by having a sentence
imposed by a judge who, fully informed about the offense and the
offender, has discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory
limits. Although most judges and legal scholars recognize the need for
discretion in sentencing, Congress has continually tried to limit it,
initially through the adoption of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws.

Congress's distrust of judicial discretion led to the adoption in 1984
of the Sentencing Reform Act, which created the United States
Sentencing Commission. The commission was created on the premise, not
unreasonable, that uniformity in sentencing nationwide could be
promoted if judges and other criminal law experts provided guidelines
for federal judges to follow in imposing sentences. However, Congress
has tried to micromanage the work of the commission and has undermined
its efforts to provide judges with some discretion in sentencing or to
ameliorate excessively harsh terms.

For example, when an extensive study demonstrated that there was no
justification for treating crack cocaine as 100 times more dangerous
than powdered cocaine, the ratio adopted by Congress in fixing
mandatory minimum sentences, the commission proposed reducing the
guideline ratios. However, the proposal was withdrawn when
Congressional leaders made it clear that Congress would overrule it.

Congress's most recent assault on judicial independence is found in
amendments that were tacked onto the Amber Alert bill, which President
Bush signed into law on April 30. These amendments are an effort to
intimidate judges to follow sentencing guidelines.

From the outset, the sentencing commission recognized the need to
avoid too rigid an application of the guideline system and provided
that judges would have the power to adjust sentences when
circumstances in an individual case warranted. The recent amendments
require the commission to amend the guidelines to reduce such
adjustments and require that every one be reported to Congress. They
also require that departures by district judges be reviewed by the
appellate courts with little deference to the sentencing judge.

Congress's disdain for the judiciary is further manifested in a
provision that changes the requirement that "at least three" of the
seven members of the sentencing commission be federal judges to a
restriction that "no more than" three judges may serve on it.
Apparently Congress believes America's sentencing system will be
jeopardized if more than three members of the commission have actual
experience in imposing sentences.

Every sentence imposed affects a human life and, in most cases, the
lives of several innocent family members who suffer as a result of a
defendant's incarceration. For a judge to be deprived of the ability
to consider all of the factors that go into formulating a just
sentence is completely at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has
been a hallmark of the American system of justice.

When I took my oath of office 13 years ago I never thought that I
would leave the federal bench. While I might have stayed on despite
the inadequate pay, I no longer want to be part of our unjust criminal
justice system.

John S. Martin Jr. is a federal district judge in Manhattan.