A Judge’s Outrageous Overreach

If you want to know why judges are so often accused of overstepping their bounds, look no further than a ruling this week by Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block.

The case involves a woman, Chevelle Nesbeth, 20, who was convicted of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute. (She was caught with 600 grams on her.)

Nesbeth faced 33 to 41 months in prison. But Block let her off with just a year of probation, six months of home confinement and 100 hours of community service.

Why? Because, he says, the “collateral consequences” convicts face beyond their sentences (e.g., the loss of a driver’s license) are harsh enough. The “effects” are devastating, he adds, and lawmakers need to decide if such punishments are warranted. Actually, he couldn’t be more right: Law makers should determine if all the rules and regulations for convicts are too tough. Not judges. But maybe Block was just trying to provoke debate.

Memo to the judge: Fixing the criminaljustice system (broken as it may be) and stirring debate are not your job. Your job is to apply the law fairly and in accordance with established policy. Sentencing guidelines exist for a reason.

Sure, the system might benefit from review: The judge may be right that penalties are too harsh or counterproductive. But what about victims — of, say, drug traffickers like Nesbeth? Or of all the bloodshed it begets?

It’s up to elected lawmakers to sort all this out. Block should stick to his job.