IT'S THE LAW

Revised Federal Sentencing Laws Aim To Keep Drug Felons Behind Bars

Almost everyone convicted of a federal drug trafficking offense in Montana goes to prison.

Of 133 people sentenced here during fiscal 2001, 111 became full-time
guests at some federal institution. Their average sentence was 65 months --
about 5 1/2 years. Many are serving 20 years to life.

Federal sentencing laws leave little room for mercy, especially when more
than simple drug amounts are charged.

That's what Congress intended in reviving mandatory minimum penalties for
some drug offenses in the mid-1980s, said U.S. Attorney Bill Mercer.

According to Montana's chief federal prosecutor, Congress reasoned: "Our
goal through the statutes is to achieve serious sentences, no matter what
the circumstances are. The only way to do this is to establish a threshold
below which the judges cannot go."

Removing judicial discretion when drug weights reached those threshold
amounts was only one of a multitude of changes engendered by a 1980s
declaration of war on drugs.

Congress broadened federal authority over drug crimes and implemented new
sentencing guidelines that abolished parole.

The government also embarked on a building program that resulted in 51 new
federal correctional facilities between 1982 and 1999. Since enactment of
mandatory drug penalties, the Bureau of Prisons budget has rocketed 1,954
percent, from $220 million in 1986 to $4.3 billion in 2001.

Most of the 80 percent increase in the number of federal inmates between
1985 and 1995 was related to drug convictions.

Federal statutes have included mandatory minimum sentences since the 1790s,
and in drug cases since 1956. They were part of the Narcotics Control Act
passed that year in an effort to curb the importation and distribution of
drugs.

Congress backed off in the 1970s, repealing most of those mandatory
minimums. But by the 1980s, the nation craved a big hammer to smash its
insidious drug problem.

New sentencing guidelines embodied the basis of reform. Congress created
the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1984 to come up with a set of guidelines
that would ensure uniform sentences for similar crimes. They were also
intended to promote honesty, predictability and fairness in sentencing.

Congress adopted the commission's guideline recommendations in 1987. One of
the key provisions was the abolition of parole. Since then, inmates have
been condemned to serve about 85 percent of the sentences received. They
can earn only 54 days good time a year.

Under the newly adopted guidelines, the probation officer who calculates
the sentence considers both the crime and the defendant's role in it. The
guidelines maintained some sentencing flexibility by considering acceptance
of responsibility, whether violence was involved, chances of rehabilitation
and the defendant's criminal history. First-time offenders usually end up
with a much smaller penalty than those who have been in court before.

But mandatory sentences adopted about the same time considered only one
thing -- the weight of the drug. Defendants at the top and bottom of the
chain get the same sentence for the same amount of drugs.

Mandatory sentences usually trump the guidelines. For instance, a drug
dealer whose guideline score falls in the range of 37 to 46 months, would
end up with 60 months under mandatory minimum provisions in the law.

In 1986, Congress made another crucial decision, one that has had a
significant effect in Montana, when it added a mandatory five-year
consecutive sentence for drug traffickers with guns.

Two years later, Congress extended the minimum mandatory provisions to
apply to conspiracy convictions -- not just the distribution counts. The
provision had the effect of equalizing everyone in a conspiracy -- from the
guy who drove the drug dealer to a sale to the guy who set up the
distribution ring. If a 10-year mandatory minimum kicked in because three
pounds of meth was in play, then the driver and the distributor go the same
10 years.

Congress seems in no mood to alter its hard stand on drugs.

"What congressman is going to stand up now and say we need to do away with
mandatory minimums," Billings defense attorney Jay Lansing said. "It's more
fashionable now to get tough on crime."

Neither Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., nor Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., responded
to requests for their views on the subject.

Organizations actively working for revision of sentencing laws exist, but
it's an uphill fight. Among the most prominent is Families Against
Mandatory Minimums, a group based in Washington, D.C. FAMM has a Web site
www.famm.org with all the latest information and arguments supporting its
cause.

Today The Gazette begins a series exploring the pros and cons of federal
mandatory minimum sentences.

We look at whether or not the strict penalties serve as a deterrent, and if
they take too much discretion away from judges. And we look at a program
supported by federal judges in Montana to educate teenagers about what to
expect if they're ever indicted.

________________________________________________________________

SERIES INDEX:

Hard Time http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n262.a04.html

No 2nd Chances With Drug Crimes http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n250.a11.html

It's The Law http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n258.a02.html

Prison Means Marking Time for Family, Too http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n263.a05.html

Paying the Price http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n265.a04.html

Partners in Crime http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n270.a03.html

Some Caught in Conspiracy Talk to Avoid Long Sentences http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n271.a02.html

Montana Project Tells Students About Drug Penalites http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n277.a02.html

Sometimes, State Charges Can Be a Wake-Up Call http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n277.a03.html

Editorial: U.S. Law Snares State Drug Dealers http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n277.a04.html