Pubdate: Thu, 01 Feb 2001
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 2001 The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper.
Contact:  501 N. Calvert Street P.0. Box 1377 Baltimore, MD 21278
Fax: (410) 315-8912
Website: http://www.sunspot.net/
Forum: http://www.sunspot.net/cgi-bin/ultbb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro
Author: Julie Stewart
Note: Julie Stewart is the founder and president of Families Against 
Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
concerned about the legal, civil and human rights implications of mandatory 
sentences.

MAKING JAIL TERMS FOR DRUGS FIT CRIME

WASHINGTON -- When a bit player in a drug deal gets nearly 20 years in 
prison, something's wrong with the system.

That's what then-President Bill Clinton concluded when he commuted the 
sentence of Derrick Curry and 20 others serving lengthy mandatory prison 
sentences for drug crimes.

Mr. Curry's case provides a good example of a wrong that plagues our 
criminal justice system -- a rigid sentencing system that incarcerates 
federal drug offenders for fixed, lengthy terms, regardless of the 
circumstances of their cases. And Mr. Curry's case was full of circumstances.

For six months, Mr. Curry, a former Prince George's County high school 
basketball star and second-year college student, was involved as a delivery 
boy in a five-year crack cocaine conspiracy. He delivered drugs twice to a 
friend and made no money for the service. An FBI agent referred to him as a 
mere "flunky" in the distribution chain. Though Mr. Curry's involvement was 
limited both in time and substance, he was the only one of the 28 persons 
arrested who was convicted of the total conspiracy violation. One dealer 
received a 10-year sentence, the friend Mr. Curry assisted a life sentence.

Mr. Clinton's commutations highlight this major defect in U.S. drug 
sentencing laws: Only the type of drug and its weight determine sentences. 
Judges must ignore all other facts of a case, such as the role the 
defendant played and the outlook for rehabilitation. No end-of-the-term 
commutations can solve this defect for the 63,621 men and women now serving 
federal drug sentences, and for those who may break the drug laws.

It falls on members of the new Congress to reform the draconian mandatory 
sentencing laws their predecessors hastily adopted in 1986 in an effort to 
stop illegal drug use. Congress should return to judges the power to 
consider all facts of the case and choose sentences based on realistic 
guidelines that are more appropriate to each case. These guidelines, 
already in place, assure that offenders will be punished fairly.

Congress should also make the "safety valve" retroactive. Adopted in 1994, 
the safety valve gives lighter sentences to select first-time drug 
offenders. Unfortunately, Congress precluded those already serving 
mandatory terms from using the safety valve; about 487 inmates who would 
have qualified for it remain in prison.

Finally, Congress should consider alternatives to incarceration, like drug 
treatment. As the 1997 RAND study concluded, treatment of heavy users is 
eight times more cost-effective than long sentences in removing cocaine 
from the market.

Mr. Clinton has righted some wrongs with his gifts of freedom and made a 
small but courageous step toward recognizing the need for sensible drug 
sentencing laws.

Now President Bush and the new Congress need to exhibit a compassionate 
conservatism in the criminal justice system and unshackle judges from the 
chains of mandatory sentences.

Let judges evaluate each case and prescribe punishment to fit the 
particular crime. Compassionately, we can return fairness to sentencing 
while keeping our streets safe. Conservatively, we can reduce government 
spending on excessive incarceration, directing monies instead to 
appropriate sentencing and more cost-effective alternatives to jail.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD