Cassell, who in 2004 announced he would no longer follow the guidelines following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the 22-year-old sentencing guidelines do not follow logic and should be jettisoned.

"Mandatory-minimum sentences mean one-size-fits-all injustice," Cassell said, according to prepared remarks. "Each offender who comes before a federal judge for sentencing deserves to have their individual facts and circumstances considered in determining a just sentence."

But mandatory-minimum guidelines - which tell judges how long a convict must serve - require judges to put "blinders" on and produce what the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist described as 'unintended consequences,' Cassell said.

To prove his point, Cassell referenced a 55-year sentence he was forced to hand down to Weldon Angelos, who was convicted of carrying a weapon during several marijuana deals. Angelos would have received a shorter sentence for a variety of "heinous crimes," Cassell said, such as airplane hijacking, second-degree murder, espionage, kidnapping, aggravated assault and rape.

"It is irrational that Mr. Angelos will be spending 30 years longer in prison for carrying a gun to several marijuana deals than will a defendant who murdered an elderly woman by hitting her over the head with a log," Cassell said in prepared remarks.

Richard Roper, the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Texas, disagreed in his testimony. Roper told the committee that for more than 20 years, every administration and Congress has supported the system because of its proven track record.

The guidelines have "transformed our nation's criminal justice system and dramatically reduced crime levels," Roper said. "In recent years, serious crime has seen its lowest levels in more than a generation, and today, overall crime rates in America remain historically low."

The hearing on the guidelines was prompted by the conviction of two Border Patrol agents for shooting an alleged drug smuggler in 2005. The two were sentenced to 11 years and 12 years respectively because of the sentencing guidelines, despite the defendants argument that they were shooting in self-defense and facts of the case were in dispute.

tburr@sltrib.com