Minimum Sentences: Unfortunate and Necessary

A final moment of greatness?

As you’re probably aware, Plaxico Burress is going to be spending some quality time with the New York State correctional facilities for doing various dumb ass things while concealing an unlicensed firearm–not the least of those things being shooting himself in the leg.

Since he was offered a three month plea and rejected it, I have no problem with him getting the two years he agreed to after realizing prosecutors were going to throw the book at him.

Others do have a problem with this, feeling that Burress is getting a raw deal and a too-harsh penalty. Those who feel his stupidity only warranted a few months in jail–a few months that was rejected by Burress in his initial plea bargain–cite an outrage at the justice system, particularly with regard to minimum sentencing.

While I see the flaws in minimum sentencing–many seem arbitrary; others so obviously racially-motivated that you would laugh if it wasn’t so despicable–I still see far greater flaws in leaving the administration of justice to a case-by-case basis system. Why? Because those who support such a reform seem to do so under the assumption that, without guidelines, judges and prosecutors will be inclined to handle each case as unique and, in doing so, do the right thing.

That seems unlikely. Why? Because most people, good and bad alike, don’t have the energy to even attempt to bring an unbiased approach to sentencing based on facts particular to each and every case. And even if they have that energy, to expect them to not be affected by precedent is borderline foolhardy.

There are far too many laws and far too many people breaking laws to think that the few on the side of justice would be either effective or just if left to their own devices.

My concerns aren’t about the cases that warrant multiple decades in prison; I’m concerned about the crimes that warrant sentences of ten years or less. In a case-by-case system, can we really expect officers of the court to put forth the energy it takes to examine each and every case as special? The fact that they are human beings leaves them open to bias and the eventual comparing of cases for the purpose of “perspective.”

Simply put, prosecutors and judges would eventually start coming up with their own sentencing standards anyway, thus making the lack of guidelines not only irrelevant, but possibly dangerous. Police could say “Well, it’s illegal to go over 65mph and today is Thursday, so that ticket’s going to be $250 instead of 75.” (Obviously, some cops do this anyway, but without standard they could do this with near impunity).

And let’s not forget: the tossing out of minimum sentencing would have to necessarily toss out maximum sentencing as well.

Sentencing falls under ranges because there are two many laws, too many criminals and far too few people really willing to do the work that individualized justice requires. It’s just unrealistic. So what can be done?

In my mind, minimum (and maximum) sentences should be under constant and rigorous review (as should the laws that precede such sentencing); a living, breathing system that changes with the times. Such a system requires sweat, but seems realistic in approach.

The question then becomes: Well who is doing the reviewing and revising? In my (hopeful) system, this is an area in which the people could–and should–participate passionately. This is a way to make votes really count in a particular way. I’m not so naive as to forget ours is a representative democracy, but input from the people doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable.

What does seem unreasonable is the doing away with minimum sentences and the assumption that those in power would suddenly do the right thing.