The Des Moines Register Saturday, June 1, 1996, Page 8A. firstname.lastname@example.org The Registerís Editorials An unreasonable system Trimble sentence may seem unfair, but rigid rules would be worse. There are two systems of criminal justice in the United States: one at the federal level; one at the state. The differences are striking. You need only look at the case of James Trimble - the former Urbandale police officer and anti-drug counselor convicted of possessing illegal drugs - to see how different. Trimble was arrested by Des Moines police five months ago carrying more than 190 grams of methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell, and prosecutors recommended a 10-year prison sentence. Instead, Judge Leo Oxberger sentenced Trimble to two years' probation, a $1,000 fine and 100 hours of community service. Critics outraged by Trimble's sentence would have been pleased, however, had he been convicted in federal court, where a similar offense would likely have resulted in a sentence of as many as 15 years in prison. And that is the equivalent of a 30-year sentence in Iowa. Whereas prisoners typically serve less than half their sentences in Iowa state prisons, there is no possibility of parole in the federal system. Something obviously is out of kilter. The question is whether it is the federal system, or the state. In general, the Iowa system makes more sense, although specific cases - like Trimble's - may seem unfair. Indeed, an example could have been made of Trimble. He is not just another first- time offender; he was sworn to uphold the law and entrusted with the education of Urbandale schoolchildren. Surely that makes him worthy of an exceptional punishment, if for no other reason than to send a message to the very people he was paid to counsel on the evils of drugs. In a sense, though, James Trimble is a fitting example of that message: He has lost everything because of drugs. Prison will not "reform" him. He is not likely to repeat his offense. His cell would be better occupied by a potential murderer. These are the sorts of difficult issues judges must weigh. The job cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula, although that is what the federal system attempts to do. About 10 years ago, Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission to establish a set of "guidelines" for criminal penalties. In drug cases, the guidelines take into account the amount of drugs seized, prior criminal records, violence involved, use of a gun, etc., to arrive at a sentence that must be served in full. Federal judges are, with a few exceptions, unable to depart from the sentencing guidelines. As a result, in the federal system drug offenders serve very long sentences. It is not unusual to hear of cases of young men convicted of merely carrying drugs who will be near retirement age before their release from prison. This policy, the result of macho anti-crime rhetoric in Congress, has had tragic consequences for individuals, and for the nation. In a recent opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Myron Bright of North Dakota cited a Federal Judicial Center study showing that by next year the federal prison population is expected to reach 110,000, two and a half times that of just a decade earlier, at an annual cost of well over $2 billion. And 70 percent of this phenomenal growth has been due to federal drug cases. "The public needs to know that unnecessary, harsh and unreasonable drug sentences serve to waste billions of dollars without doing much good for society," Bright wrote. "We have an unreasonable system." Bright is right; the federal sentencing guidelines are unreasonable. It's possible to disagree with a judge's decision in an individual case - as some have with Judge Oxberger's sentence in the Trimble case - but on the whole the state system works. As critical as Iowa's prison-crowding problem is, it would be magnified exponentially if Iowa judges were forced to send every drug dealer to prison for a decade or more and there were no chance for parole.