SOLID SENTENCES

Supreme Court Ruling Gives Judges Necessary Discretion When
Sentencing

Drug addicts and drug dealers wreck lives - their own and others'.
Neighborhoods are ruined by drug activity, and in the most tragic
cases children are hurt.

The economy is impacted by addiction. Jails are bursting with people
convicted of drug crimes, at great cost to taxpayers. And because
violent crimes and property crimes such as burglary are often
drug-related, just about every person is a potential victim of drug
abuse.

The damage drug abusers cause is the reason police, prosecutors,
legislatures, Congress, governors and presidents fight a war on
drugs. It's a noble fight, even if the weapons and strategies used
are often wrong for the job. One of those misguided weapons is a set
of drug sentencing guidelines that have proved unfair, blind to
extenuating circumstances and detrimental to long-term life changes.
But last week, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7-to-2 vote, retooled the
weapon, bringing it back to a more useful state.

In its rulings last Monday, the court made it clear that the
guidelines are advisory, rather than binding, and dealt with the
controversial disparity in sentences for people convicted of crack
cocaine vs. powder cocaine crimes. Under the federal sentencing
guidelines, crack cocaine offenders have typically been given 50
percent more jail time than powder cocaine offenders. Clearly, a
tweak to the 1980s law was needed, especially when African-Americans,
as a group, were on the losing end of the guidelines. Now judges
have more freedom when trying to amend the guidelines' disparity.

More good news came Tuesday, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission
decided to give retroactive effect to a recent amendment to the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines that reduces penalties for crack
cocaine offenses. Not every crack offender will be eligible for a
reduced sentence, but National Public Radio reports the move will
cut the disparity by 17.7 percent for as many as 19,500 prison
inmates. "On average, that would mean a reduction from 12 and a half
years in prison to 10 and a half," NPR says.

Because of the Supreme Court's actions, judges will have more room to
deviate from the guidelines when sentencing criminals. Usurping
judicial discretion with hard and fast rules is typically bad, and we
hope the Supreme Court's decisions will bring about an end to
outdated sentencing guidelines that have resulted in an excess of
prison time for minority drug offenders that would fare better with
rehabilitation and the ability to contribute to society.

Uniformity in sentencing sounds good, but no two crimes are exactly
alike. Judges are able to see the differences and determine when
someone is a threat to society or in need of a less punitive approach
than required in sentencing guidelines.

We believe more discretion can bring about better justice and, we
hope, more rehabilitation, fewer drug-related crimes, less
recidivism, safer kids and neighborhoods, a better economy and
unclogged prisons. Last week's court rulings weren't a victory for
just drug users; they were a victory for the rest of us, too.