Don't Just Say No to Paring Sentences Federal prosecutors in this part of the state should take a more judicious view of crack cases. April 15, 2008 Roanoke Times Editorial When asked, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia has opposed sentence reductions for crack cocaine offenders in every case up for review since new, retroactive sentencing guidelines went into effect. As the district's chief judge noted, such uniform opposition is not helpful to the court. Nor is it reasoned or just. People don't fit neatly under blanket judgments. Even among convicted felons, some people are harder cases than others. Federal prosecutors should give due thought to each and offer the court credible guidance in deciding whose sentences to cut and by how much. U.S. Attorney John Brownlee says he merely is following the lead of the Justice Department, which opposed applying the new guidelines to past convictions. Besides, he said, his office is not treating all resentencing filings the same. Although it objected to all, it marked some "defer to the court." Prosecutors must do that in any case. Such noted deference may be, as the prosecutor says, "a clear signal that this one can go." But the court obviously seeks a more solid basis for judgment than a prosecutor's "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." No one wants to return truly dangerous criminals to the streets any sooner than required. Sentence reductions are not automatic. Courts are to consider them, though, to bring greater proportionality to the punishment for the crime. The U.S. Sentencing Commission revised its guidelines and applied them retroactively to redress a discriminatory set of rules that meted out far harsher sentences for crack than powder cocaine offenses. The disparity is racially discriminatory, in effect if not design: More than 80 percent of federal crack prosecutions in 2006 were against black defendants. About 80 percent of powder cocaine defendants, on the other hand, are white. Even with the new guidelines, a huge sentencing disparity remains. Congress passed mandatory minimum sentences that kick in for relatively small amounts -- a 1to-100 ratio -- of crack compared to powder cocaine. Congress needs to change the law. Until then, the courts, with the help of prosecutors, must bring reason to applying it.