Pubdate: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 Source: Valley Morning Star (TX) Copyright: 2003 Valley Morning Star Contact: http://www.valleystar.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/584 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) A HEALTHY DEBATE ABOUT SENTENCING Attorney General John Ashcroft probably didn't do it to promote debate and discussion. But in directing U.S. attorneys nationwide last week to start reporting on federal judges who impose lighter sentences than called for in federal sentencing guidelines, Ashcroft might have precipitated a national discussion on prison sentences and especially on "mandatory minimum" sentences for certain offenses. Such a discussion is long overdue. Ashcroft's order does not threaten judicial independence directly, although it does include a directive to make sure the government is prepared to appeal more light sentences, and to centralize such decisions in "main Justice" in Washington. But it is a blatant attempt to intimidate federal judges into imposing heavier sentences even when such sentences offend their sense of justice or their knowledge of mitigating facts. Thus does a politician reputed to have been a conservative suspicious of overweening federal power become an enthusiastic advocate of beefing up centralized power - once the power is in his hands. No wonder our founders tried to create a government of checks and balances. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent speech to the American Bar Association urging ABA members to repeal federal mandatory minimum sentences and "let judges be judges" was probably not a direct response to Ashcroft's directive. In fact, it reflects longstanding frustration within the federal judiciary. Last month, Judge Myron Bright of the 8th District Court of Appeals wrote that recent legislation affecting sentencing guidelines makes an already difficult situation worse. Chief Justice William Rehnquist also has said that centralizing information on sentencing practices "could amount to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges." Any debate over mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines should take into account that the federal impulse to stiffen sentences is in part an artifact of the war on drugs. Congress began enacting the guidelines in the 1980s in an effort to use even stiffer punishment to solve the drug problem. Let the discussion begin. Should mandatory minimum sentences be eliminated? - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin