Pubdate: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Page: C - 6 Copyright: 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 LET JUDGES JUDGE The U.S. Supreme Court showed good sense - and uncommon courage - in giving judges more sway in sentencing drug dealers to prison. In two cases, the court ruled that a judge could veer from hard-line drug sentencing guidelines that have drawn criticism as racist and unthinking. A trial judge, the high court found, should have the discretion to mete out sentences that vary from harsh sentences set by federal sentencing guidelines. The major case involved crack cocaine, which can draw 100 times the prison time compared with convictions related to powder cocaine. By one count, 82 percent of the defendants sentenced in federal court for dealing crack are African American while only 27 percent of those selling the white powder. The court steered away from this unpleasant racial reality by focusing on another issue. Judges should have the right to decide, within reason, on handing down sentences - and don't need to follow ironclad formulas, a seven-justice majority said. It's a message that some voters and politicians don't like. No one much cares about an judicial unfairness when it comes to drug dealers. And the image of soft-headed judges has led to a string of lock-'em-up rules such as California's rigid "three strikes" law. The high court's ruling goes against such thinking, but it's no brief for criminals. Instead, the decision is a reminder that judges should play an important role and don't simply hand out jail time according to a pre-set formula. Coming next, possibly this week, could be a decision by a federal sentencing agency on shortening terms for some 20,000 prisoners convicted of crack dealing. The high court's decision may surprise observers who think it's swung too far right. That's not the case when it comes to judicial discretion and defendant rights. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake