DRUG JUSTICE

Bill Would Give Sentencing Judges Proper Flexibility

State Rep. Bill McConico, D-Detroit, has a plan that would add some sense to
Michigan's costly, ineffective and inflexible drug laws. Legislators should
pass without delay the reworked bills, which have the support of many
prosecuting attorneys, drug court professionals and activists such as
Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

Essentially, the bills would do away with mandatory minimum sentences for
drug offenses, replacing them with sentencing guidelines that give judges
the same discretion they now have when punishing violent criminals. Make no
mistake, serious drug offenders would still get tough sentences -- up to
life -- but judges would have more flexibility to impose shorter sentences
and drug treatment when appropriate.

Mandatory minimum sentences have proved to be a costly failure in the war on
drugs. The idea was to take down drug kingpins. Instead, low-level dealers,
mules and addicts often got excessive sentences, including life, at a big
cost to taxpayers.

Critics have called for changes in drug sentencing laws around the country.
In Michigan, a pending ballot proposal in November would overhaul the
state's drug sentencing laws. McConico's plan would give critics of that
proposal a chance to support a less sweeping plan.

Sentences for drug offenses should not hinge solely on the amount of the
drug involved. Judges should be able to tailor sentences to fit the crime --
considering prior convictions, use of a weapon, injury to a victim and other
circumstances -- just as they do with other crimes.

One-size-fits-all sentencing serves neither justice nor the taxpayer.