Sentencing Guidelines Not the Answer

In a case that ignited a firestorm of protest throughout the state, Judge Maria Lopez recently sentenced a man who kidnapped and sexually assaulted an 11-year-old boy to one year of house arrest and five years probation. The public was justifiably outraged that the assailant, 22-year-old Charles Horton, will not spend any time behind bars.

Massachusetts Gov. A. Paul Cellucci quickly took advantage of the charged atmosphere to propose two changes to the judicial system. He first vowed to renew a push for the state to adopt strict sentencing guidelines. Cellucci then said that he would file a bill to give prosecutors, as well as defendants, the right to appeal sentences. Both of these proposals would hurt the justice system more than they would help.

Cellucci's first initiative, which would tie the hands of judges and turn the sentencing process into some sort of mathematical equation, is not the answer. Cellucci has said the state should adopt strict sentencing guidelines, drawn up in 1994 but never implemented. The sentencing rules would severely curtail a judge's discretion in determining a criminal's punishment. By matching a defendant's previous record against the crime, a grid would reveal the maximum penalty a judge could give. Two-thirds of that sentence would be the minimum. If the judge issued a sentence outside those bounds, either the prosecution or defense could appeal to a three-judge panel.

In the first place, many feel that the guidelines are not strong enough. Cellucci himself considers them far too lenient. "You could beat your wife or girlfriend six times and still not go to jail. That's ridiculous," Cellucci told The Boston Globe. The state's district attorneys agree, and so the guidelines have not yet been adopted.

But regardless of how punitive the guidelines, the real concern is that they would restrict judges' ability to assign a punishment appropriate to each individual crime. Such a system, much like mandatory sentencing, eliminates a judge's experience and wisdom from the sentencing process. Instead, the decision is made by a grid that cannot consider any of the intangibles that might make a difference to a judge. No two crimes are the same; ignoring the circumstances does both defendants and prosecutors a disservice.

While it is never easy to see a criminal get off easily because of a judge's discretion, in the long term more damage would be done by ironclad sentencing restrictions. Instead of the Horton debacle, imagine a case where there are extenuating circumstances for the defendant. Should a judge be forced to ignore them during the sentencing process? Or, imagine a hardened criminal who shows no repentance or regret during a trial. Should justice be blind to that during sentencing?

Cellucci's bill that would allow prosecutors to appeal criminal sentences is perhaps even more startling. Such a change would destroy one of the most basic guarantees of the American judicial system: "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Once a criminal is sentenced, however leniently, prosecutors should not have the power to go back and ask that the sentence be lengthened. Allowing a prosecutor to appeal a sentence would skew the delicate balance of power away from the legitimate rights of the defendant.

Commenting on this case, Cellucci has shown a peculiar callousness to the guarantees in the judicial system that protect the rights of defendants. "Instead of protecting the defendant from the prosecutors," Cellucci has said, "the judge should be protecting the public from the defendant." Coming from a high public official, Cellucci's comment is even more irresponsible. Of course the justice system exists to protect the public. However, only a police state disregards the rights of defendants in order to accomplish that goal. That would indeed be a high price to pay to protect the public.

It seems clear that Horton deserved a much harsher sentence, though no one knows what confidential information Lopez considered in her chambers. Regardless, Gov. Cellucci's responses to this sordid affair have done little to help. His proposals would result in more injustice than they would prevent.

--David M. DeBartolo