Sentences That Fit the Criminal

Some members of Congress are putting a hard eye on last week’s Supreme Court ruling that loosened federal sentencing rules. Though fuzzily expressed, the decision should help restore fairness to the criminal justice system. Congress had destroyed that fairness in order to look tough, and it will do the same thing all over again if it tries to “fix” the court ruling.

The sentencing rules, which set a range of prison terms for each federal crime, were enacted by Congress 20 years ago to ensure that defendants received uniform terms for similar crimes, whether in Texas or Massachusetts. But the rules became a political tool for grandstanding lawmakers. Sentences were increased and judicial discretion steadily limited. This tilted the judicial scales toward the prosecution and unbalanced the relationship between the crime committed and the sentence served.

The Supreme Court did not exactly strike down the rules, but it made them advisory rather than mandatory. That means judges must still consult the guidelines but will be free to consider individual circumstances in setting terms longer or shorter than the prescribed range. Sentences that federal prosecutors feel are too lenient can be reviewed for “reasonableness” by appeals courts.

The flexibility the high court granted is appropriate. The mandated sentencing -- which calculates terms based on the offense, the defendant’s history and the specifics of the crime -- reduced judges to little more than clerks tallying sentences from a spreadsheet. Congress demanded mandatory minimums for so many crimes that judges from across the political spectrum considered the federal sentencing system irrational, unfair and unduly harsh. Several judges quit their lifetime jobs in recent years rather than impose prison terms they believed a defendant didn’t deserve.

Judges who have commented publicly on last week’s ruling say they aren’t about to go soft on criminals. But they were pleased to have back some discretion and judgment, those qualities that presumably appealed to the presidents who appointed them.

Predictably, the ruling has angered congressional conservatives, who mutter about reimposing the harsh rules. Last session, some House members pushed bills to bar federal courts from ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage, even passing one, but such actions raise serious concerns about separation of powers.

The constitutional implications are just one reason that Congress ought to avoid any effort to undo last week’s decision. To its credit, the court settled on a reasonable compromise that respects the principle of separation of powers. The legislative branch owes the court’s solution a chance to work.