ASHCROFT WANTS ALL JUDGES TO THINK LIKE HE DOES

Attorney General's Hit List. Nation's Top Law Officer Needs To Review
Constitution.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has declared war on any federal
judge in the country with the audacity to hand down a lenient criminal
sentence.

Ashcroft has directed federal prosecutors to immediately report to the
Justice Department any sentence that is a "downward departure" from
sentencing guidelines.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said Ashcroft simply wants
to "get an accurate reporting of how the sentencing guidelines are
being applied."

That's nonsense. What Ashcroft and the Justice Department want is a
witch hunt. They want a list of "liberal" judges that they can go
after, discredit and replace with their conservative kinfolk.

It is, plain and simple, bad policy and an attempt to subvert the law
of the land.

Ashcroft apparently believes judges should take their marching orders
from prosecutors, and he's conveniently ignoring the constitutional
balance of powers.

You remember the balance of powers, don't you? This country's Founding
Fathers recognized the danger in granting the executive branch of
government - the president and his staff - the power to dictate law.

The U.S. Constitution makes clear that laws are to be passed by the
Congress, signed by the president and ruled upon by judges.

Judges are expected to exercise judgment. That is, they are required
to examine all of the factors in a case, weigh the defendant's prior
record, character, heinousness of the crime and other intangibles and
arrive at an appropriate sentence.

That's what they do. That's all they do. And Ashcroft thinks they're
using poor judgment.

Sentencing guidelines were developed by a commission created by
Congress in 1984. They are intended to limit disparities among
sentences around the country while still recognizing judicial discretion.

It's unfair to defendants if bank robbers in California are sentenced
to harsher prison terms than are identical defendants in Pennsylvania
- - or Wisconsin.

But there's no such thing as two identical defendants. That's where a
judge's judgment comes in.

Ashcroft sides with prosecutors, who for years have complained that
federal judges are granted too much leeway in assessing appropriate
sentences.

In fact, federal judges in 2001 departed from sentencing guidelines in
about 35 percent of cases. That means two out of three criminals fall
into the "average" ground covered by guidelines.

It's that other one in three that bothers prosecutors. Those criminals
are let off too easy, they say.

But about half of the sentences that depart from guidelines involve
plea bargains - deals engineered or endorsed by those very same
prosecutors.

They want all crooks treated the same - unless their cases are weak or
defendants agree to share information in exchange for lenient sentences.

Then prosecutors want judges to sign off on the deals, no questions
asked.

Prosecutors can't have it both ways. And Ashcroft can't rewrite the
Constitution.

This is the same attorney general who wants his own leeway to spy on
American citizens, review all of their reading materials and snoop
through their Internet surfing.

The Justice Department has its hands full going after corporations
that are bilking stockholders, tracking down al-Qaida conspirators and
enforcing federal weapons laws.

It should concentrate on those priorities rather than trying to get
the rest of the world to adhere to Ashcroft's errant views on democracy.