Delaware judges have not been permitted to do their jobs properly in criminal prosecutions since the mid-1980s.  Because of unwarranted fears, a powerful cadre of legislators instated mandatory minimum sentences.

Judges are trained to evaluate a convicted criminal’s background and the nature of the offense before bestowing sentence.  But some legislators contended that judges were soft on crime and were giving light sentences to serious offenders.

Efforts to undo mandatory minimums were thwarted by former Sen. Thomas B. Sharp, who saw no reason to confront innuendo with facts.  Not only did he block reform legislation, he even objected to studying mandatory sentencing.

Now that Mr. Sharp has retired from the General Assembly, there are indications that reasonable lawmakers will make needed changes.

House Bill 35 is sponsored by Rep. John Van Sant of Woodcrest, a former state trooper.  It would give judges some flexibility in drug cases involving first-time offenders or minor violations.  It is a small step in the right direction.

The bill has eight other sponsors in the House and Senate.  It was introduced on behalf of Stand Up for What’s Right and Just, a group with 1,900 members organized to seek improvements in the state’s criminal justice system.

Passage of H.B. 35 will not revolutionize Delaware’s approach to sentencing criminals.  Last year, Attorney General M. Jane Brady shepherded legislation reducing minimum sentences in a few select crimes.

Delaware judges are nationally recognized for their ability.  There is no evidence that they have been soft on criminals.  Why then do we handcuff them?  Why prevent them from using all available options for dealing with convicts?

In many cases, drug treatment makes more long-term sense than imprisonment.  Home confinement would be much less expensive for certain offenders.