From: Jim Rosenfield <[j n r] at [igc.apc.org]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 25 Oct 93 13:20 PDT
Subject: Rep Edwards on Mandtry Mins

Federal Courts Are Casualties in War on Drugs

Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1993

The bench is buried in trials, up 197% in 10 years,
best suited for state courts.

By DON EDWARDS

Insulated from the hot winds of politics and the hysteria of the
moment the federal judiciary has been the guardian of our rights
for more than 200 years. Today. this great system of justice is in
trouble. and unless corrective measures are taken by the President
and Congress. we all are endangered .

lt was the intention of the founders that the federal courts would
rule over issues of national importance. major federal crimes and
constitutional controversies. leaving to state judges now numbering
29,000 the responsibility for most criminal cases.Sadly. in the
past decade Congress has federalized scores of state eries and the
added burden on the federal courts threatens their viability.
 Caught in the early 1980s frenzy of the war on drugs Congress
enacted dozens of tough federal drug laws. each bearing a heavy
sentence with no parole. These trials have precedence over civil
eases.

The 649 federal district judges are now fairly drowning in drug
cases that should be tried in state courts. Even if the current 110
judicial vacancies are filled, the district courts still will be
overwhelmed and important civil cases where the delays - now
average nine months will languish at the clerks desks. with all the
costs and anguish that result when judicial consideration is
delayed or denied.

From 1982 to 1992. criminal drug cases in the federal courts
increased 197% from 4,218 in 1982 to 12,512 in 1992. That's 8,294
additional drug trials. In 1992 drug cases represented more than
26% of the criminal cases in federal courts. Over the same 10-year
period the civil case load increased by a modest 10%.

In some areas, civil eases must wait three years for attention. lt
is even worse in the West's enormous Ninth Circuit where Chief
Judge J. Clifford Wallace in frustration announced in May that
unless changes were made. there would be no time to hear civil
appeals. Two senior judges from the New York district have
announced that they will no longer hear drug cases. The morale of
the federal judges is suffering. Historically they have used their
discretion in cases where both the individual and society would
benefit from a sentence that promotes rehabilitation. The mandatory
minimum sentencing laws took away that discretion and in case after
case the federal judge must impose a harsh prison sentence that
ignores any mitigating circumstances.  It is distressing for a
Judge to find that he or she must send to prison for years a
first-time nonviolent offender whom the judge considers a good
prospect for rehabilitation if given a shorter sentence and strict
federal probation.

The judge also knows that the federal prisons are bulging at 143%
of capacity, resulting in nearly unmanageable conditions with few
programs designed to rehabilitate the felon.

Congresc must act soon or the damage to the once-great federai
judiciary system will be irreparable. The best vehicle available
may be the omnibus crime blll under consideration by the House and
Senate.  An amendment must be added that gives the senteneing judge
flexibility, at least in drug cases.  To tailor the sentenee,
taking into consideration such factors as the defendant's degree of
participation in the crime, as well as the prospects for
rehabilitation.  Such an amendment would begin the rescue of a
system that has been for two centuries the model for the world.
------------------
Rep. Don Edwards (D) San Jose is vice-chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee.