Posted on: Thursday, November 13, 2003

EDITORIAL
Strict sentencing rules should not be accepted

Forget what you see on television and in the movies. Criminal trials are generally extremely complicated affairs, involving reams of technical evidence, passion, conflicting testimony and days of detail.

Reducing such trials to a formula is a sure prescription for unfairness, which in turn reduces overall confidence in the judicial system.

But formula-based law is precisely what is emerging, at least on the federal level. New guidelines, produced by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, will further limit the flexibility of federal judges in sentencing decisions.

While judges will still have some ability to impose stricter, or more lenient, sentences than the guidelines recommend, that flexibility will be severely limited under the latest guidelines.

Many judges have already complained about the new rules, and for good reason. Courts maintain respect by imposing judgments based on common sense, reality and the facts of the individual case.

Following a sentencing recipe distorts this process.

Much of the impetus for limiting judicial discretion is based on the thought that judges were becoming too lenient, letting criminals "off easy," as it were.

Statistics do not support this. The Sentencing Commission's own study found that federal judges in 2001 gave lighter sentences than recommended in just 11 percent of the cases.

This doesn't sound like a broken system. The new rules are operating now on an emergency basis but could become permanent next year. Before that happens, this idea should be reconsidered.