PRIOR RECORD SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING

A court of law is meant to reveal truth. Uncovering truth is a challenge, one made more difficult without all facts being disclosed. We believe the judicial process is best served by all available information being brought to light, including that dealing with a criminal suspect's prior offenses. Along with this, we support Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon's position in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving prosecutors' endeavors to make a guilty party's history a more welcome part of criminal sentencing.

At issue before the nation's high court is a Missouri case in which an armed robber, with four felonies to his credit, was given a severe prison sentence on the basis of his prior offenses, though no evidence of his lawless past was introduced at the trial. The appellate argument developed as a question of whether prosecutors should get more than one chance to prove someone is a repeat offender; those who support the robber's claim say such an opportunity establishes constitutionally prohibited double jeopardy for a criminal defendant.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case in 1994.

Mr. Nixon's argument, echoed by his counterparts in 11 other states plus the U.S. solicitor general, is that the double jeopardy clause of the constitution is sound but was never meant to be applied to the sentencing component of a trial. (This assumes the double jeopardy standard itself is incorruptible; in the case of an acquittal of four police officers accused of beating Rodney King in Los Angeles, those accused were tried a second time for the same actions, albeit in federal court.) Criminal defense lawyers take a contrary view, insisting prosecutors will be given unlimited opportunities to reshape their presentation of a lawbreaker's past deeds.

What is important to remember in this regard is that a person's criminal past should not be an arguable issue in court: either persons have committed crimes, or they haven't. Recidivism is not something that dissipates simply because of a governmental label is not applied to it every so often. Regardless of when the facts are stated -- at the criminal trial or when sentencing is being determined -- a bad criminal history should have an impact on the punishment a convicted person receives.

Understand that this is not a claim to set aside any defendant's constitutional rights, nor is it a proposition that persons be held continually accountable for the same crimes. However, we join many Americans in believing that the criminal justice system bends backwards to the point of spinal damage in protecting the rights of the guilty when the innocent are left mystified by the process. In the Missouri case now before the Supreme Court, a man who committed four felonies was convicted of pointing a gun at a jewelry store employee. We must ask first why this man was free to perpetrate the crime. We must ask then why it should not be taken into account when sentencing is determined. The answer is, it should be, regardless of when the information is brought before the court.

In hearing oral arguments for this case, Justice David Souter said, "To allow a rehearing in this issue is going to enhance the possibility of accuracy, not undermine it." That is exactly the point. Let the information come to light, and the chances for justice to be done are enhanced.