Editorial: Justice better served

Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2005 | 8:49 a.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal judges no longer have to abide by mandatory sentencing guidelines established by Congress. The Supreme Court didn't completely throw out the guidelines, however, determining that they will be advisory. So judges will continue to have to take the guidelines into consideration when sentencing. A judge will be allowed to depart from the guidelines as long as the sentence is reasonable. But if federal judges stray too far from the guidelines and create sentencing disparities, the court warned, it could result in the sentences being overturned later.

Although a number of legal analysts don't believe this was a total victory for judges, many of whom had chafed under the restrictions, it still is a step in the right direction. Obviously, Congress should set ranges when establishing possible criminal sentences. But it really should be up to a human being -- not some rigid formula, as was the case under the mandatory sentencing guidelines -- to hand down a sentence that's appropriate to the crime. That's why we want such great care taken in the nominating and confirming of federal judges, who not only should have bright legal minds but also be eminently fair. If justice is to be served, judges must be allowed some discretion when sentencing. Otherwise, a judge is little more than a matrix in a robe.