Editorial: Judges are not robots in robes

Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2003 | 8:41 a.m.

Federal sentencing guidelines should be as useful to judges as Kelley's Blue Book is to those selling or buying a car. The Blue Book shows you generally what you might expect to pay for a car or to receive for a trade-in. It's a useful reference to ensure against paying way too much or selling too low. Dozens of factors, however, can throw the Blue Book price off by wide margins. Judges should be allowed to treat sentencing guidelines in the same manner. According to the sentencing guidelines, a person selling drugs, for example, should receive a certain minimum sentence. But are the thousands of federal drug cases around the country so alike that all defendants found guilty should receive almost exactly the same sentence?

We believe there is a reason the person presiding over a trial is called a judge. Federal judges are appointed to the bench only after having passed rigorous confirmations by the Senate. Unless they abuse their trust, they should be allowed to render judgments -- as conceived by this country's Founding Fathers. Over the past 15 years, however, there has been a growing movement in Congress to codify the sentencings in federal crimes. A body of thought, today embraced by the Bush administration and a majority of the members in Congress, states that federal judges should regard federal sentencing "guidelines" as mandates.

With the blessing of Congress, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently sent a memo to all federal prosecutors, ordering them to submit a report to the Justice Department each time a federal judge hands down a sentence more lenient than that called for by the guidelines. The information will be used to report the judges to Congress and to challenge the sentences in appellate courts. We side with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee. He told the American Bar Association in a speech on Sunday that he agrees with the need for federal sentencing guidelines. But he also said, "I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences." Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, is also critical of this kind of attack on judicial discretion.

If today's trend continues, judges in the near future won't need to bring any of their knowledge or experience to bear. All they'll need are charts.