STATE SYSTEM FOR SENTENCING PEOPLE CONVICTED OF FELONIES NEEDS

I may have written this before. But even if I have, I think it's important
enough to repeat: The federal system for sentencing those convicted of
felonies is better than the state system.

Criminal history, acceptance of responsibility, cooperation and, in drug
cases, amount of the drug all play a part in federal sentencing guidelines.
A federal probation officer puts all these factors, and more, together, for
the judge. The judge then gets a point total. Although I'm simplifying the
process quite a bit here, this sets the potential sentence range. The judge
usually hands down a sentence within that range.

The federal system also has no parole.

In state courts, like federal courts, judges get presentence reports from
probation officers. But without a standard set of sentencing guidelines,
the state system has too much leeway.

For instance, a federal convict knows exactly how accepting responsibility,
or cooperating with authorities, can affect his point total.

In state court, the impact of these factors is murky at best. The methods
used also put way too much discretion in the hands of prosecutors.

And because there's no parole federally, it means more when a federal judge
hands down a sentence. Because of the power of the parole board, as well as
prison overcrowding, convicts in state court too often will serve only a
fraction of the original sentence.

[REMAINDER OF COLUMN NOT DRUG-POLICY RELATED]

Assistant Managing Editor Matt Harvey can be reached at (304) 626-1442