By Julie Stewart

President of Families Against

Mandatory Minimums

THE WASHINGTON POST

November, 6 1993

Once again, Sen. Phil Gramm has played on the public's legitimate fear of crime to mislead it about the role of mandatory minimum sentencing ("Crime and Punishment", op-ed, Oct 29). His favorite tactic is to talk about violent offenders (like the car-jacking duo who killet Pamela Basu last year) and mandatory minimum sentencing in the same breath, leading his audience to believe that violent offenders receive mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, there are no federal mandatory minimums for the most common violent offenses - murder, rape, robbery, child molestation or even car-jacking.

The mandatory minimum stentences that Gramm supports were enacted in the 1980s and were targeted at drug offenders. Some drug offenders are dangerous "drugs thugs" as Attorney General Janet reno calls them. But thousands of other durg offenders are fist-time, nonviolent, reformable people. And there is a growing chorus of bipartisan voices that believe that judges should be able to make those distinctions when sentencing offenders.

Last month, Sens. Storm Thurmond and Alan Simpson cosponsored a bill to allow nonviolent, first-time, durg offenders to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines instead of the mandatory minimum statutes. The bill, known as the Sentencing Improvement Act of 1993, is also sponsored by Senate Judiciary members Paul Simon, Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy. After spending years studying crime and sentencing issues, these senators join a host of other reputable criminal justice experts, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in calling for a more rational sentencing policy.

Many judges have voiced their opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing, but Gramm dismisses it as merely sefl-serving. Indeed, the repeal of mandatory minimum stentences would give judges more discretion in sentencing. But Gramm misleads the public by failing to tell them that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines proved a floor below which judges cannot go without good cause and which is subject to appeal bu the prosecutor. If mandatory minimum sentences were repealed tomorrow, judges would still hand out stiff drug sentences under the sentencing guidelines. It's interesting that Gramm doesn't trust judges to sentence drug offenders considering that 75 percent of the federal judges on the bench today were appointed by Republican administrations.

One of Gramm's favorite pitches is that htere is no such thing as a nonviolent, first-time drug offender. But the U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics he cites show that 76 percent of the durg offenders sentenced to federal prison in 1992 were unarmed, and 49 percent of them were first-offenders. A total of 3.189 nonviolent, first-time drug offenders went to federal prison last year and their average sentence was 7.5 years, without parole. That's longer thant hte sentences for manslaughter, sexual abuse, assault and arson, among other crimes. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that crimes of violence increased by 11.2 percent between 1986 (when mandatory minimum sentences were enacted) and 1991,

It's clear that mandatoryminimum sentences have failed to cut violent crime and illegal drug use. Putting 20-year-old Nicole Richardson in prison for 10 years, without parole, for telling an undercover agent where to find her boyfriend to buy some LDS is not going to prevent the murder of Michael Jordan's father. Neither will the five-year incarceration of Joel Project, who grew marijuana for his personal use, or the 15 year-sentence given to Marvin McCoy, a homeless drug addict befriended by an undercover agent who provided him with drugs, drinks and meals in exchange for introductions to drug buyers. Punish thems, yes. But let the punishment fit the crime, and keep the prison beds open for violent offenders who deserve them,