Sentencing rules need reform to limit leniency

I am writing to respond to the editorial Harsh judgment from April 19. I am perplexed as to why an amendment that merely seeks to enforce the original intent of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which established the sentencing guidelines, is so controversial to the St. Petersburg Times editorial board. Since their inception, the guidelines have stated that sentences should be predictable, uniform and tough and that departures, as a whole, should be "rare occurrences."

Unfortunately, the intent of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is not being carried out in our court system. Downward departures on grounds other than substantial assistance to the government have climbed steadily every year for the last several years. The rate of such departures in non-immigration cases has climbed from 9.6 percent in fiscal year 1996 to 14.7 percent in FY 2001 - an increase of more than 50 percent in just five years. More disturbingly, downward departures in child pornography possession cases have ranged between 20 percent and 29 percent nationwide. Often, these departures are based on much-abused grounds, such as "aberrant behavior" and "family ties."

With the ratio of downward departures to upward departures at 33-to-1, there appears to be little chance that judges in our country are actually going to exceed the sentencing guidelines. This amendment enacts necessary reforms designed to ensure greater consistency and adherence to the Sentencing Guidelines, and to avoid unwarranted leniency. The Feeney amendment preserves the discretion of district court judges to depart downward, but restricts those grounds in certain cases, and applies a meaningful standard of review on appeal - a standard of review which is consistent with virtually every other comparable question of the application of the law to the facts in the criminal law today. Congress intended that similar crimes receive similar punishments. This amendment does not strip judges of any discretion beyond what was originally intended by the Sentencing Reform Act.

Bar's new pass level won't help public

As a former prosecutor, public defender, judge of industrial claims and partner in the law firm of Blews & Everhart, and a former chair of the Criminal Procedures Rule Committee of the Florida Bar and the current chair of the Criminal Law Section of the Florida Bar, and now as a tenured full professor of law, I am ashamed at the Bar's current attack on today's law students. The Florida Supreme Court, supposedly at the urging of practicing lawyers and judges in Florida (and with limp opposition from the leadership of Florida's law schools) upped the score that a law school graduate needs to pass the Bar exam and practice law in Florida. Now more law school graduates (already loaded up with educational debt) will be flunking the Bar exam. Good news for the schools that took the students' money, but another hit for today's law students.

The court said it was upping the pass rate in order to protect the people of Florida (see the April 1 issue of the Florida Bar News). Well, if a lot of stupid lawyers and judges slipped through under the old exam, why isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander? Why just defame and pick on recent, current and future law graduates? If the Bar exam is such a good test to determine who is smart and who is stupid when it comes to practicing law (which I don't believe), why not retest all lawyers and judges using the new pass rate? We re-test drivers; why not judges and lawyers? After all, isn't there some evidence of deficient practicing lawyers and judges? So why not have everybody tested using the new pass rate? Let's get rid of all the stupid lawyers and judges, even the ones who slipped through under the old exam.

Or is there another reason we are upping the passing score for new grads (and defaming all recent law grades) and grandfathering in all practicing judges and lawyers? Like reducing competition between the old guard and recent law graduates! Well, that's a cheap shot. Law students are better prepared today than my generation ever was. Besides, competition is great. Don't stifle it; just make it a fair fight. Some of these recent grads are really talented. Don't pick on a group of defenseless law students and defame a bunch of recent grads just so you can make more money and control the profession. Sure, there is more the law schools (and the Bar) need to be doing (and it will be done when the leadership of those institutions changes to better prepare law students to practice law), but this act of discrimination and feather-bedding is not the way for an honorable profession to protect the public.

(The statements or opinions appearing herein are those of the author, not the Florida Bar, the Sections, etc., or Stetson University College of Law.)

Lawmakers should ratify ERA

Re: "Feminist fantasy" bound for a Florida retro-flop, by Diane Roberts, April 20.

Thank you, columnist Diane Roberts, for your article about why the Equal Rights Amendment is still needed. We recognize that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect women from discrimination. Neither does the Florida Constitution. The 5th District Court of Appeal on Dec. 14, 2001 declared that strict scrutiny shall not be applied to sex discrimination as it is to those cases of race, religion or national origin. Laws do not protect women's equality. We thought that Title IX and affirmative action would always be there to help level the playing fields.

The amendment says: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Employed women still are paid about 73 percent as much as men for the same kind of work. That's after taking into account the years they invest in home and family. Families lose about $4,205 per year due to women's lower wages. ERA would benefit men, too.

Sex discrimination still happens because Florida and two other states are holding up progress in the United States. Rep. Jeff Kottkamp, and Sen. Anna Cowin have the ERA bills locked up in committee but won't say why.

Does it make political sense for legislators to refuse even to consider the ERA - one of the very few no-cost bills? And the one that will bring out women voters they will be courting next year?

The ERA now has a life of its own. Eight-eight per cent of citizens say they want an ERA. Thirty-three Florida organizations agree. Four states have now filed ERA bills. Three resolutions to adopt the ERA await in the U.S. Congress.

Florida lawmakers: Ratify the ERA or tell us why.

Constitution doesn't need ERA

Re: "Feminist fantasy" bound for a Florida retro-flop, by Diane Roberts.

This discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment is very much like the proposed amendment itself - convoluted and logically inconsistent. The amendment's passage would, of course, delight trial lawyers; the potential for wretched excess in lawsuits is far reaching.

It is strange indeed that the arguments for passage of the amendment identify no specific rights that are currently being denied to anyone or threatened to be taken from anyone - on the basis of sex or anything else! There is some vague assertion about the need for a "bedrock guarantee" to assure that progress (presumably some further gender-related legislation) is not threatened. Such an assertion is hardly sufficient to justify tinkering with our marvelous Constitution.

There is mention of a pay disparity between men and women - presumably a difference in average pay (with no distinction in the difference in the jobs or conditions relating to the pay). It would appear that Roberts et. al. really want to use a general, high sounding, vague amendment to facilitate creation of some kind of equal pay legislation.

The column asserts that some legislators will be voting against equal rights, but voting against the ERA is not voting against equal rights. It is voting against an inefficient, convoluted means for dealing with rights and inequalities (many of which are imagined and/or highly subjective).

It will be most unfortunate for our society if supporters of the ERA are successful. If some stupid law or procedure that discriminates on the basis of gender (or other group basis) still exists in a state or local government, it is easily rectified, in this information age, with public exposure and ridicule. Perhaps the ERA supporters could devote their energies to such an approach. We don't need to corrupt the Constitution and further burden our legal system.

Fido has the answer to road rage

Re: Dwight Smith arrested, April 17.

Whenever I see or read about "road rage," as in this article regarding Dwight Smith, I am reminded of a driving class I just took. The instructor said everyone should have an imaginary dog on the passenger seat that you pat when road rage enters your mind. The dog's name is Fido, and that stands for "Forget It, Drive On."

Everyone should adhere to this idea, as road rage leads to death in many cases.

Trail section is a winner

Re: The Tamiami Trail, April 20.

Congratulations to Jeff Klinkenberg, photographer Scott Keeler and everyone who contributed to this magnificent section. It's one of the finest pieces of writing, photography and newspaper layout I've ever seen. It deserves every award and accolade it will achieve. The Web site is also a masterpiece.

Tamiami memories

Re: The Tamiami Trail.

This section was just wonderful. I read every word and was transported back to some of the places Jeff Klinkenberg described, places I had seen before. It made me want to see the places I have not seen yet. As always, Klinkenberg's writing is fascinating; his research is both in-depth and entertaining.

He is a credit to the St. Petersburg Times.

Congratulations also to Don Morris and Scott Keeler for the art and photography.

A glimpse of old Florida

Re: The Tamiami Trail.

Every year my girlfriend and I travel to the Keys for a week-long vacation. Every time we go, we take U.S. 41 from Naples to Krome Avenue to experience the old Florida that doesn't seem to be around anymore. Thanks for a great article (and photography) on one of Florida's treasures. More people should slow down and take the trail across the Glades next time.

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, use the cut and paste functions to place it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright