Pubdate: Wed, 08 May 2002
Source: Mobile Register (AL)
Copyright: 2002 Mobile Register.
Contact:  http://www.al.com/mobileregister/today/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/269

CRIMINAL CODE REQUIRES MERELY MODEST REFORMS

In criminal sentencing, firmness and common sense ought to be the dual 
watchwords.

The subject comes up yet again because of a highly publicized Montgomery 
case in which a first-time drug offender and mother of two was released 
from prison last week after serving nearly five years of what originally 
was a sentence of life-without-

parole.

In 1998, Theresa Wilson was convicted of selling a morphine mixture to an 
undercover police officer. Under Alabama's tough-on-crime sentencing 
guidelines, Ms. Wilson was punished with the life sentence.

Clearly, the punishment looked too Draconian for the crime, especially for 
a first offense. A state appeals court overturned the sentence last week -- 
and Ms. Wilson and her attorney were widely quoted advocating more 
discretion for judges.

It is true that Ms. Wilson's case is far from unique these days. All across 
the country, petty offenders of anti-narcotics laws are filling prisons to 
the brim, even though they pose only a moderate danger to society. The 
overburdened prison system stems directly from an ill-considered, though 
well-motivated, reaction to burgeoning crime rates.

Nevertheless, it would be foolish to overreact in the opposite direction. 
There's nothing wrong with taking a firm stand against crime, and there's 
nothing wrong with giving judges only a little leeway in sentencing. Part 
of the problem with crime rates in the 1970s and 1980s grew from judges 
abusing their discretion to impose sentences far more lenient than 
legislatures intended.

What's obviously needed is a reassessment by legislatures, including 
Alabama's, that does a more sober job of matching sentences to the severity 
of the crimes. Part of that sober assessment will recognize that all crimes 
are in some ways unique, and that only judges are in the perfect position 
to take into account the particular exigencies of each individual crime.

In other words, judges ought to be given some discretion -- but not a lot. 
Yes, the Legislature ought to allow a range of sentences for most crimes, 
especially non-violent ones. But the range should be narrow. Criminals must 
not be given the impression that they can get away with breaking the law 
merely by gaming» the system and taking advantage of a liberal judge.

Again, there's nothing wrong with throwing the book at violent offenders. 
But society as well as non-violent offenders may well benefit from 
alternative sentencing options, including creative ones, that make 
rehabilitation possible before either violence or rage at the system 
becomes too ingrained.

In Alabama, fortunately, an official Sentencing Commission, created by the 
Legislature, is examining just these kinds of issues and is expected to 
make recommendations next year for reform. We can only hope that the 
commission keeps common sense in mind, and that the Legislature follows the 
commission's lead.

As Attorney General Bill Pryor put it, We need to be tough on crime, but we 
also need to be smart on crime.» Mr. Pryor is quite correct that the two 
ideas are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing instead.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart