Editorial: Letting judges judge

Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007 | 7:07 a.m.

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court bolstered its previous rulings that give judges the ability to apply common sense and discretion when sentencing criminals.

The court has previously ruled that federal sentencing guidelines - which outline the minimum and maximum sentences a judge can give for specific crimes - are advisory. The justices have found that judges can deviate from the guidelines as long as their rulings are reasonable.

In a 7-2 ruling Monday, the judges made their point well by ruling on the case of Brian Gall.

In his second year in college, Gall was using cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy. He was asked to help a drug ring distribute ecstasy, and he did so for seven months before walking away and cleaning up his act. He graduated from the University of Iowa and left the state to pursue a career in construction.

Nearly four years after leaving the drug ring, he was indicted. He moved back to Iowa to face the charges and, in the process, started a small business that quickly became successful.

He agreed to a plea deal. The federal sentencing guidelines called for a minimum of 30 months in prison.

The sentencing judge, however, used his judgment and sentenced Gall to three years of probation. Gall had, in the words of the judge who sentenced him, "self-rehabilitated."

He didn't have a criminal record, had not taken drugs since college and had cooperated with law enforcement. The court noted a "small flood" of letters from people who had worked with him describing his good character and work ethic. The court also noted that Gall had played a small role, had willingly left it and had been a productive member of society since.

An appellate court found the ruling strayed too far from the guidelines, but the Supreme Court understandably found the sentence reasonable.

The sentencing guidelines were meant to provide uniformity in sentencing, but if judges stick strictly to those guidelines they will end up with unjust sentences, as Gall's case proves. Putting him in prison would serve no purpose.

The Supreme Court is correct. Judges should be able to judge.