EDITORIAL
Mandatory sentencing: why bother with judge?

Behind closed doors, judges have long complained about how mandatory sentencing laws strip them of judicial discretion and result in prison terms that frequently don't fit the crime, particularly in the case of drug offenders.

But rarely do they take a public stand on the issue. So we applaud New York's U.S. District Judge John S. Martin for revealing that an escalating trend toward mandatory sentencing laws is pushing him to quit the bench.

Undeniably, Martin can make more money in private practice than he can as a federal judge. But he insists his prime motivation for resigning was triggered by legislation, signed in April by President Bush, that forces federal judges to strictly follow sentencing guidelines.

Such trends beg the question, what point is there in having a judge at all? A clerk could simply use a numerical formula to arrive at a sentence. One shudders to think of such a courtroom scenario. But that's the direction we're moving in.

And that's why it's important for those responsible for dispensing justice to say when enough is enough. America's justice system is envied around the world. But that reputation is slipping as we get so tough on crime that we're filling prisons with low-level drug offenders.

Martin says he's considering organizing former federal judges and top prosecutors to lobby Congress to make guidelines more sensible. After 13 years on the bench, he's well qualified to lead this effort, and we hope many other judges break the silence and follow his lead.