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