Reaction Mixed on Plan to Make Prison Terms More Uniform

Proposals to achieve more uniformity in sentences for federal crimes drew a sharply mixed response from witnesses testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

A federal prosecutor from Los Angeles welcomed the commission’s attempt to develop sentencing guidelines that would reduce disparities in punishment for the same offenses, noting that he had seen judges give everything from probation to 20 years in prison to bank robbers in generally similar cases.

“Not only are there significant disparities in courts within a few miles of each other, there are disparities even within the same courts,” said U.S. Atty. Robert C. Bonner.

The prosecutor told the seven judges and lawyers who make up the commission that he had seen defendants “audibly gasp” when informed that their cases would be heard by a judge known for tough sentences. Other defendants had “cried for joy” and hugged their lawyers when they drew lenient judges, he said.

Defender’s Reaction

But federal defender Judy Clarke of San Diego assailed the commission’s complex proposed guidelines as “incomprehensible, unmanageable and far too harsh.”

“Your guidelines are a mathematical monstrosity . . . a slide-rule approach to justice,” she said.

To some extent, sentences should reflect values and viewpoints of the particular community, Clarke said, noting that the offense of illegal immigration would be seen far differently in places as different “as San Diego and Wahoo, Nebraska.”

“I’m not sure disparity is a problem,” she said. “I don’t find a great deal of fault with the present system.”

The commission is holding hearings across the country on proposed guidelines it is scheduled to submit to Congress next spring, setting policies and practices for judges to follow in implementing a sweeping overhaul of the federal sentencing system. The guidelines would go into effect next fall unless overturned by the lawmakers.

The long-established practice of indeterminate sentencing, under which judges enjoy wide discretion, would be abandoned in the federal system. Parole--in which offenders can obtain release after serving only one-third of the term, would be abolished.

Under a new determinate-sentencing system, judges would still be bound by the minimum and maximum terms for offenses set by Congress. But, with some exceptions, they also would have to follow the new guidelines designed to achieve greater uniformity in sentencing.

The guidelines call for judges to consider a wide range of aggravating and mitigating factors about an offense and the offender--such as whether a weapon was used, whether there were injuries to victims and whether the defendant had accepted responsibility and cooperated with authorities. The judge then is to use a point system to weigh the factors and come up with an appropriate sentence.

Sentencing Hearings

Several witnesses warned Tuesday that the new system could result in long and costly sentencing hearings. Defense attorneys in particular said they were concerned that the proposals would unfairly limit the imposition of probation.

Some witnesses, joined by some commissioners, expressed concern that under the new system more plea bargaining might take place between the prosecution and defense--with more disparities in sentencing the result.

Federal Appeals Court Judge Arthur L. Alarcon of Los Angeles warned that such out-of-court bargaining could conceal important information about a defendant from the sentencing judge.

“The result would be disparity in sentencing--not because of judicial discretion . . . but because of the skill of lawyers negotiating over what facts to present to the court,” Alarcon said.

State Appellate Justice J. Anthony Kline of San Francisco described for the commission California’s shift to a determinate-sen- tencing system 10 years ago.

Called Impossible Task

Kline agreed that disparities should be eliminated, but added: “You have an impossible task; no way will you come up with guidelines that will satisfy all the people involved.”

Mary Woods of Los Angeles, representing a group of crime victims, told the commission that it was important for a judge in passing sentence to hear from the individuals who are victimized--a right now recognized by California law.

Woods recalled how she, as a victim of rape and robbery, had testified against her assailant and was present in court when he was sentenced to 15 years in prison--the maximum term. “I felt like the strongest woman in the world,” she said.