We have these rules for a reason and judges should follow them. When they don't racial bias definitely plays a part.

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. The rules were instituted because their was a great deal of race/money bias. Rich white people were typically given shorter sentences than poor blacks who committed the same crimes. However, sometimes there really are extenuating circumstances and it seems a shame that judges can't take that into account.

No they shouldn't. They made the rules so that sentencing would be fair. A drug charge is a drug charge. You should do your time.

Duh. It seemed like having manadatory minimums was a bad idea. Every case is different and judges should be trained to use discretion.

I think the actual ruling was that it was ok for judges to give lighter sentences for criminals in crack cocaine cases vs. regular cocaine. No idea why, however.

In response to Kat:There were two cases: Kimbrough v. U.S., 06-6330, and Gall v. U.S., 06-7949. The first dealt with cocaine. In the other case, the court upheld a sentence of probation for Brian Gall for his role in a conspiracy to sell 10,000 pills of ecstasy. U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of Des Moines, Iowa, determined that Gall had voluntarily quit selling drugs several years before he was implicated, stopped drinking, graduated from college and built a successful business. The guidelines said Gall should have been sent to prison for 30 to 37 months.

In response to corinthians:He sold 10,000 ecstasy pills and got probation. While I'm glad he turned his life around, it seems rather unfair that he received no punishment for all the lives he ruined by pushing drugs.

In response to corinthians:There should be a little room for lighter sentences, but every lighter sentence should be subject to review.

In response to corinthians:That's a tough call. Do you really send someone who has turned their life around to prison?

In response to corinthians:Hey! Nice catch! I had no idea that there were two cases. I'd only read about the crack/cocaine ruling in the newspaper.

In response to corinthians:Yeah, that's exactly the kind of case where the sentence doesn't really seem to do anyone much good.

Judges should have to stick to the guidelines -- if you do the crime, you should do the time.

In response to Bella:But it also seems wrong to give the same sentence to a guy who turned his life around vs. someone who remained a drugdealer. I guess it depends on whether you expect prison to rehabilitate or just punish.

In response to southboca:No it probably wouldn't have done much good to punish someone who has seen the error of his ways and changed -- but it might send a message that dealing drugs is not tolerated ... in much the same way that you wouldn't absolve a murderer, just because he had changed his life around.

In response to southboca:You also have to take into account how many lives were ruined by the drugs that the guy sold -- there's no punishment for that?