The Louisiana prison inmate who got a life sentence after stealing hedge clippers in 1997 is receiving a lot of publicity. The case gained national attention after a 5-1 decision by the state Supreme Court that upheld his sentence.

Fair Wayne Bryant, 62, has served 23 years of that life sentence. Although his sentence was upheld, a dissent by Chief Justice Bernette Johnson has put the case in the spotlight.

Johnson, the only black member of the court, was critical of the habitual offender law under which Bryant got the life sentence. She called it legislation passed after the Civil War to make it easier to convict former slaves and their descendants for minor crimes.

Bryant has had his legal problems. He was convicted of attempted armed robbery in 1979, which is classified as a violent crime under Louisiana law. He had three subsequent nonviolent crimes — possession of stolen things in 1987, attempted forgery of a $150 check in 1989 and simple burglary in 1992.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal that upheld Bryant’s sentence in 2000 said, “Defendant has spent very little of his adult life outside of the criminal justice system. This litany of convictions and the brevity of the periods during which defendant was not in custody for a new offense is ample support for the sentence imposed in this case.”

Scott Peyton, Louisiana director of Right on Crime, talked about habitual offender laws in a recent commentary in The Advocate. Right on Crime is described as a conservative U.S. criminal justice reform organization focused on reducing crime, lowering costs and restoring victims.

Peyton quoted Derek Cohen, national director of his organization, who said “prison is for the people we’re scared of, not the people we’re mad at.” Peyton compared Bryant’s case to another Louisiana case involving Derek Harris.

Harris is a veteran who was sentenced to life after receiving his fourth nonviolent felony conviction — a $30 marijuana transaction. The state Supreme Court overturned the use of the habitual offender law in the Harris case and he will soon be released after having served 9 years.

Peyton said, “There is the old adage if you don’t want to do the time, then don’t do the crime. However, the principles of freedom and liberty fundamental to the conservative worldview demand the time be proportional to the crime. Too often that is not the case.”

The decision about whether to try someone under the state’s habitual offender law rests with the district attorney. Peyton said prosecutors should wield that hammer responsibly, and that wasn’t done in the cases of Harris and Bryant. He said their loss of freedom doesn’t match the severity of the offense.

Peyton called it shocking that 10 of the state’s 64 parishes account for 89 percent of those serving time under the habitual offender laws. Orleans and Jefferson parishes account for nearly 57 percent of those convictions, he said.

Probation, drug courts, veteran’s courts and other specialty courts are a better alternative to habitual offender laws, Peyton said. He said criminal justice reforms made by the Louisiana Legislature in 2017 and 2020 laid a lot of groundwork to make Louisiana right on crime, but these two cases show there is more work to be done.

Dane S. Ciolino of New Orleans, in a letter to The Advocate, said as a law professor and lawyer who has spent a career helping people accused of grave wrongdoings, he agrees Bryant’s sentence was harsh. However, he said judges aren’t to blame.

“In our system of government, judges don’t make public policy or enact criminal laws,” Ciolino said. “The Legislature does. As (U.S.) Chief Justice (John) Roberts has often stated, a judge is just an umpire who calls balls and strikes.

Ciolino said the majority of the justices in Bryant’s case followed the rule of law and called his last strike.

“After all, he had five prior violent and nonviolent convictions stemming from at least 14 separate arrests over 20 years, Ciolino said. “Sending him off the field for life was what the Legislature —not these justices — decided was appropriate.”

Ciolino said Chief Justice Johnson’s dissent calling Louisiana’s habitual offender laws unfair, racist and disproportionate on African Americans are all good reasons for the Legislature to reconsider those laws or for the executive branch to consider clemency or parole.

Bryant applied for a parole on July 21, and the seven-member Committee on Parole has scheduled a hearing for Oct. 15 to determine whether to free him. Factors that will figure into whether Bryant deserves parole will include his criminal record, his behavior in prison, whether he has a place to live and any comments from victims.

Whatever happens, the Legislature needs to consider whether the number of violent crimes instead of all crimes should be a major factor in habitual offender laws. Prosecutors who decide whether to use those laws should also get as much input from others as possible before making those decisions.SENTENCES QUESTIONED — Prison sentences based on Louisiana’s habitual offender laws are considered by many to be unfair to defendants. Two cases spotlight the problem.

MGNonline