To the editor:

Professor Mike Hoeflich seems to have misunderstood the controversy over President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence (Journal-World, July 4).

In contrast to the professor’s understanding, the New York Times pointed out that no one questions the president having the power to commute sentences as well as to pardon. The controversy arises from the fact that for decades the Republican Party advocated determinate criminal sentencing to curtail the consideration by judges of factors such as past record, prior good deeds and honorable conduct, economic impact on the defendants, and the judges’ gut feelings as to the likelihood the defendant would reoffend.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines (FSGs) were the product of the Republicans’ success in reforming sentencing law. The judge in Libby’s case, as required by law, used the FSGs to arrive at the 30-month sentence he imposed on Libby.

Then in commuting Libby’s sentence, President Bush employs the very considerations the FSGs were designed to eliminate from the sentence determination process. It smacks of hypocrisy and shows that “in” elite are more equal than others before the law.

Mark Rockwell,

Lawrence