Good News For Bad Guys

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 6, 2004 | Debra J. Saunders

[Scenic Sounds]

SUNDAY NIGHT'S "60 Minutes" segment on federal mandatory-minimum drug sentences -- "More Than They Deserve" -- touched on a facet of the federal drug-sentencing system that might surprise many people.

No. 1: Laws that were supposed to put away the bad guys for long, hard prison time often are being used to keep low-level offenders behind bars for decades longer than drug kingpins.

[Scenic Sounds]

Mandatory sentencing - Is it just good law enforcement or is it an example of government waste, fraud and abuse?

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
	Kenya						20.00	1

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Prime Choice]

Mandatory sentencing - Is it just good law enforcement or is it an example of government waste, fraud and abuse?

Consider that mandatory sentencing would have never come into being had there not been a rash of judicial rulings that let serious offenders off with no more than a slap on the wrist (and sometimes with little more than a finger-wag).

Each situation has its downside. Mandatory sentencing really sticks it to someone who might have wised up after the first bust and probation...and total judicial discretion leaves society at the mercy of Liberal judges who all-too-eagerly buy the "bad guy has attention deficit disorder" rubbish.

Neither situation is acceptable, really...but I'm hard-pressed to come up with a better one.

[LN2Campy]

Mandatory minimums are politically very popular in a lot of circles, as their proponents benefit by being viewed as "tough on crime". But by eliminating judicial discretion as to sentencing, such rules violate hundreds of years of common law tradition and progress.

Of course, the overproliferation of federal "crimes" makes a mockery of the Constitution itself...

[Western Phil]

"No. 2: Prosecutors can reduce the sentences of drug kingpins who testify against others. But underlings new to the drug business, who can only implicate those who have implicated them, don't have as much bargaining power."

The guilty plea bargain. The innocent or new small timers have nothing to bargain with and tend to become long time wards of the state.

What are the chances the kingpins tell the truth?

[Scenic Sounds]

Mandatory minimums are politically very popular in a lot of circles, as their proponents benefit by being viewed as "tough on crime". But by eliminating judicial discretion as to sentencing, such rules violate hundreds of years of common law tradition and progress.

Exactly. Mandatory sentencing is like McJustice - one size fits all. It's very expensive, but without a budget crisis, a politician can get lots of votes proposing it. Here in California, the politicians will now be looking for ways to reduce a lot of these sentences. Will they get votes for that, too? ;-)

[dixierat22]

I think you are correct that the mandatory sentences came about as a result of the jsutice system missfiring. The only real problem is that there is no room for common sense in the court room.

From my point of view, there should be some way that a judge (or a panel of judges) can review a sentence on a case by case basis and say "this is too much" (or too little) in this instance. Just my opinion.

[Prime Choice]

From my point of view, there should be some way that a judge (or a panel of judges) can review a sentence on a case by case basis and say "this is too much" (or too little) in this instance.

That's an idea I kicked around for time, and I saw some shortcomings in it. First, we have (or maybe had) a similar arrangement in the appeals process by which sentences could be reviewed...but that put a strain on the already-overburdened courts (which was another justification for mandatory sentencing). Second, we could wind up with the same mess that brought about mandatory sentencing: Liberal bleeding-heart judges suspending sentences for no logical reason. And finally, it would strike yet another blow to already-flagging juror pool morale. (After all, what's the point of giving up your regular pay, getting sequestered and enduring the whole court process only to have your verdict capriciously tossed aside later on?)

I really hate to be a wet blanket on all this. I'd much prefer that a meaningful solution to all this be found. I just can't see it (yet).

[uncbob]

Once again the wrong problem is being addressed

If it wasn't for the supid WOD we wouldn't have this farce to begin with

[secretagent]

Agreed.

[secretagent]

townhall.com

Debra Saunders

December 11, 2002

Free Clarence Aaron

Nine years ago today, Clarence Aaron was sentenced to three life sentences without parole.

Is he a traitor? A serial killer? A terrorist? No. Aaron is a 33-year-old nonviolent first-time drug offender who 10 years ago hooked together two drug dealers and was paid $1,500.

The punishment does not fit the crime. At the time of the deal, Aaron was a senior at Southern University in Baton Rouge, La., and having trouble paying for school. Unlike his co-defendants, Aaron had no criminal record, no known drug history, no history of violence. Unlike the drug dealers, Aaron had worked steadily from adolescence to pay for his education and help support his family.

Yes, Aaron broke the law.

For his crime, Aaron admitted by phone from the federal pen in Atlanta, he deserved to serve time, maybe five to 10 years. But life without parole?

Don't credit tough drug laws -- not when all but one of the six other people involved in the two drug rings were let out of prison. And these are men with records or known to have been bigger players in the trade.

Marion Teano Watts -- one of the two dealers -- testified that he was "a major crack cocaine distributor in the Mobile area" and had made "over a million dollars." Watts served seven years and 10 months behind bars. He has been free since early 2000.

The other dealer, Gary Chisholm, according to court documents, threatened to "skin" the sister of a drug-ring member. Chisholm also was charged in a different case for dealing 15 kilograms of cocaine. His sentence was reduced to 24 years.

So why is Aaron the only defendant now facing a life sentence? Aaron's Boston attorney, Gregg Shapiro, credits "sentence inversion," a phenomenon described by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: "Bold dealers may turn on their former comrades. ... Drones of the organization -- the runners, mules, drivers and lookouts -- have nothing comparable to offer" to prosecutors anxious to cut time in exchange for information.

Aaron made a second mistake: He failed to plead guilty. Apparently, not pleading guilty and not snitching is a bigger crime -- or at least rates a bigger penalty -- than being a drug kingpin.

When I asked if he thought he would have received the same sentence if he were white, Aaron answered: "I hate to put a black and white thing on it. I see it every day here. I look around and see the young blacks that come into these walls. ... I don't see too many young white kids coming into the penitentiary."

Aaron has a stellar prison record. In 2000, the Atlanta warden petitioned unsuccessfully to move Aaron to a less secure facility. The warden noted Aaron's clean disciplinary record. Prison officials consistently have rated his work as a personnel clerk as "outstanding."

Aaron has only one hope -- President Bush -- who can and should commute his sentence to time served.

The bad news is that Bush has yet to exercise his pardon powers. The good news is that this Christmas season would be a good time to start.

"By this time, in their terms, every president in recent history except for Bill Clinton had already granted a number of pardons," noted Margaret Love, who was pardon attorney for Bush pere. "It's better to begin pardoning early, because if you wait until the end of your term, like Bill Clinton did, it will only get you into trouble."

A Justice Department official tells me Aaron's pardon application is "pending." For his part, Aaron won't let himself believe that he'll never get out, that in America he would have to give up liberty for the rest of his life for one stupid, nonviolent criminal act.

Now, only one act of compassion by George W. Bush can save him.

[secretagent]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/printds20021211.shtml

[Scenic Sounds]

Thank you. Pretty compelling story.

Do you think that America's experience with mandatory sentencing will make it any harder for politicians in the future to make a career out of pushing for these kind of laws?

[secretagent]

No. Most Americans hate dealers of unpatented drugs.

We always need witches to burn, I guess.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, if we legalize marijuana, won't that mean that the hippies were right? ;-)

[secretagent]

Revenge for 60's, I guess.

The drug warriors sure love counterculture bumper music, though.

[Scenic Sounds]

Revenge for 60's, I guess.

You're absolutely right - the whole marijuana thing is so tangled up emotionally with other social and political issues that it just can't be dealt with rationally, I'm afraid.

[Prodigal Son]

three life sentences without parole

Jesus Christ.

[secretagent]

I've heard that the average murderer in the U.S. only gets 7 years.

[Prodigal Son]

That sentence is just wrong. How do you even get one life sentence for something like that- much less three? It's hard to believe that's happening.