DRUG SENTENCES

Giving Judges Discretion Would Improve Justice

Budget constraints won't allow the state House to do much when it returns to
work today, but it can restore justice to the justice system by passing
overdue legislation to roll back mandatory sentencing laws for drug
offenses.

The bills, sponsored by Rep. Bill McConico, D-Detroit, were approved
unanimously last month by the Criminal Justice Committee, with the backing
of the Michigan Judges Association and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association
of Michigan.

Essentially, the bills would replace mandatory minimums, based on the amount
of the drugs involved, with sentencing guidelines that give judges the
discretion they now have when sentencing violent criminals. They would
permit judges to tailor sentences to fit the crime by taking into account
prior offenses, use of a weapon and other circumstances.

Inmates already serving a mandatory minimum would be eligible for parole,
but would gain freedom only if a tough parole board granted it.

Michigan enacted mandatory minimums in the 1970s to get drug kingpins off
the streets. Instead, small-time dealers, mules and addicts got excessive
sentences, including life, at a big cost to Michigan taxpayers. Longer
sentences have driven up the prison population, which now costs $1.6 billion
a year.

Supporters of the current system label almost any reform effort as soft on
crime. That's nonsense. McConico's bills actually increase penalities for
serious crimes such as dealing drugs in a home where a minor resides. In
truth, the bills would not substantially change the sentences of most
offenders, but it would make the system more uniform and fair.

Many states already have repealed mandatory minimums. There's good reason
for legislators to do the same in Michigan.