Federal prison sentences in the United States are rigidly defined, often disproportionate to the crime and too long. This general unfairness aside, the cost to taxpayers is needlessly high. Even so, lawmakers scared to death of being viewed as soft on crime won't touch sentencing laws. They should grab the opportunity and cover provided by the Supreme Court and a pair of federal judges to change the federal law and state laws spawned by it.
Judges in Boston and Salt Lake City, in separate recent cases, ruled that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was unconstitutional in its harshness. The Supreme Court's criticism last month focused on state laws but nonetheless signals Congress to fix the law. The 1984 act was supposed to correct inequities, but as often happens with such reforms, the pendulum swung too far. Before then, judges could impose shorter or longer prison time depending on the circumstances of the crime and defendant's history. That system did cause unfair disparities: Criminals who did the same crime often served different time, depending on the judge who sentenced them.
In response, Congress created a commission that sets a mandatory range of prison terms for specific federal crimes. Judges can add or subtract months within those ranges, depending on the circumstances of the crime. To combat drug crimes, Congress also established mandatory minimum terms that are especially stiff. Many states adopted similarly rigid schemes, and Congress has periodically made sentences harsher still, creating new issues. By 2001, for example, the average sentence for federal drug trafficking was 72.7 months and the average for manslaughter was 34.3 months.
Largely because of these laws, the United States imprisons four times as many people as Western European nations. In 1999, the federal and state governments spent $49 billion to incarcerate about 2 million people. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has acknowledged that the status quo isn't working. " 'Tough on crime' should not be a substitute for thoughtful reflection or lead us into moral blindness," he said last month in accepting recommendations for change from the American Bar Assn. Among the group's sound suggestions: repeal mandatory minimums, create treatment alternatives to prison for some drug offenders and those with mental illness, and better prepare inmates for life after prison.
In recent years, several outstanding federal judges have said they resigned to avoid handing down ever-longer mandatory sentences. Of course, more judicial discretion, especially at the state level, could create outrage if a homeless shoplifter got 10 years and a rich murderer got probation. But there's no reason laws can't be written to achieve fairer results. The current law abuses everyone, judges and taxpayers included.
