Syracuse Herald-Journal Editorial
May 19,1997

Reform Sentencing Laws

Let judges decide punishment

Not necessarily, according to a study by the Drug Policy Research Center of the Rand Corporation. Requiring long prison terms for drug dealers returns less benefit per dollar to the taxpayers than traditional law enforcement strategies or providing treatment to drug addicts, the Rand report concluded.

The visceral appeal of the throw-away-the key approach is undeniable, even if it's beneficial effect is illusory. Citizens tend to think they're better served if their money is spent to build and operate prisons rather than for crime prevention. There is no way to quantify crimes that aren't committed. The fear of becoming a victim of feeds the urge to remove criminals from their midst for a long time.

But limiting judges' choices isn't the answer. Long mandatory sentences don't get drugs off the street. And they are expensive. In New York, the Rockefeller drug laws passed in 1973 require judges to apply a minimum 15 year sentence to anyone convicted of selling or possessing four ounces of cocaine. At the end of last year, 8,760 people were imprisoned under those laws, at the cost of $260 million a year, according to the Correctional Association of New York.

How much more would New Yorkers' lives be improved if that money were devoted to preventing and treating drug addiction? Or, how much safer would our neighborhoods be if that prison space were occupied by violent offenders instead of non-violent drug addicts?

We should trust judges to exercise good judgment, rather than tying their hands. Legislators get mandatory-sentencing laws passed by taking outrageous cases of freed criminals run amok and holding them up as typical. Namby-pamby judges cannot be allowed to turn brutes loose on innocent citizens, the pitch goes. But the empirical evidence doesn't support that conclusion, according to the Rand study.

Another cost of long mandatory sentences, not covered by the study, is the clogging of the court system. Defendants are more inclined to roll the dice with a trial instead of copping a plea and accepting a prison term. That means more judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys on the public payroll.

Federal mandatory drug sentencing law is unfair on its face. It sets a minimum sentence for possession of eight ounces of cocaine powder at the same level as possessing one fifth of an ounce of crack cocaine. What's the difference? Crack is a street drug, common among the poor. Powdered cocaine is favored by people of a higher socioeconomic background. Congress and the administration have cheerfully ignored the recommendations by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to narrow or eliminate the disparity.

Again, these are decisions that should be left the judges. Each case has its own vagaries. One- size-fits-all sentencing laws prevent judges from evaluating those factors and making good decisions based upon individual circumstances.

Ultimately, these laws waste taxpayers money without improving the quality of their lives.

Go To Top