Posted on 11/18/2004 3:23:03 PM PST by Former Military Chick
"To sentence Mr. Angelos to prison for essentially the rest of his life is unjust, cruel and even irrational," U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said.
That said, however, Cassell said he had no choice but to follow the statutes and sentence 25-year-old Weldon Angelos to prison for more than half a century. But in doing so, he called on President Bush to commute Angelos' sentence to one more in line with his crime. The judge suggested 18 years and asked Congress to revisit the mandatory-minimum laws that required the term.
The sentence was handed down in front of a full courtroom of Angelos' family and friends, as well as legal observers, many of whom expected Cassell to declare unconstitutional the mandatory-minimum sentencing laws that governed Angelos' sentence.
Angelos' loved ones, including his wife and two young sons, were in tears upon hearing Cassell's decision. Defense attorney Jerome Mooney also expressed disappointment.
"We just saw the effect of a Congress concerned about their seats and re-election instead of justice," Mooney said, saying the harsh sentencing laws prove legislators are more concerned with being viewed as tough on crime rather than the imposition of fair punishments on criminal offenders.
To mandate a term that would keep the young father behind bars until he is 80 years old, Mooney said, is "unjust, and Congress should be ashamed of themselves."
Angelos, the founder of the Utah-based rap music label Extravagant Records, initially faced at least a 61 1/2-year sentence for the 16 criminal counts of which he was convicted in December. The bulk of that term — the 55 years imposed Tuesday — is based on just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional firearms at his Fort Union apartment.
Cassell imposed just one day for the additional 13 drug, firearm and money-laundering charges.
The case has garnered the attention of legal experts across the country, who have been following Cassell's moves since June, when he declared the federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional in the case of a Utah man convicted of child pornography. That ruling came on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that called the constitutionality of the guidelines into question.
Mooney, joined by 29 former legal officials from across the nation, had asked Cassell to find that the onerous mandatory-minimum term in the Angelos case constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defense also argued the firearm statute is not applied equally to all criminal defendants, a violation of Angelos' equal-protection rights.
And although Cassell appeared to agree with the defense on nearly every point, the judge, in a lengthy opinion released immediately following Tuesday's hearing, said his analysis failed to meet the legal threshold required to find a statute unconstitutional. Thus, he said, he was required to impose the "Draconian" prison sentence.
"Our constitutional system of government requires the court to follow the law, not its own personal views about what the law ought to be," the judge wrote.
Federal prosecutors have maintained throughout the case that Cassell had no choice but to impose the mandatory-minimum sentence. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Lund argued Tuesday that lawmakers passed the firearms statute — which requires a five-year mandatory-minimum sentence for the first charge and a 25-year term for each count thereafter — with the clear intent to address the growing problem of mixing drugs and firearms.
Attorney Jerome Mooney talks to the media after his client Weldon Angelos was sentenced to prison, calling the virtually lifelong term unjust.
"Drugs and gun violence are an endemic problem in this country," Lund said. "There's a huge societal impact."
Angelos' sentence simply reinforces the message Congress intended and will serve as an important deterrent, Lund said.
"People who engage in armed violent crime or armed drug dealing are going to face very serious consequences," he said.
Critics of the legal mandate, however, question the fairness of a method that doesn't allow judges to tailor a sentence to fit a particular crime or criminal defendant.
"Judicial discretion has always been the heart and soul of the American justice system," said Monica Pratt, of the Washington D.C.-based organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
Margaret Plane, staff attorney for the Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed.
"That's why this case is such a great example," Plane said. "(Mandatory-minimum) laws apply without regard to the offense type, without regard to the particular offender. It's really kind of a one-size-fits-all approach, and that's not how our justice system should necessarily work."
Despite his ultimate finding, University of Utah law professor Erik Luna commended Cassell for addressing the matter at all.
"Judge Cassell did a very brave thing in even raising the issue," said Luna, an outspoken critic of federal sentencing laws. "We need to take this to the next level, which is to talk to the politicians. . . . I hope and pray some day that sanity will come back to the system."
---------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: awelling@desnews.com
Yet, I do have compassion and I have thoughts on federal mandatory sentencing guidelines.
When you break the law you should be punished. But, I wonder, when someone is breaking the law selling pot, with a gun? When you put it in those terms there seems to be little one can say in his defense of a lesser sentence.
Yet, the DA wanted to make a pretrial deal. I have so many issues with that I cannot even begin to know where to start.
Many recall the young boy, in Florida, who claimed he was doing a wrestling move he saw on TV, that resulted in the death of a little girl. The boy's mother would not do a pretrial deal, and, the boy was found guilty and sentenced to life, until the Governor and state courts got involved. There are many other issues with this case but that his mother could have done a deal that would have kept in jail less then the trial has me questioning the DA's power. The same feelings I have that this young man told the big bad government that he wanted to have a trial by his peers and sadly that if he lost the DA would be much tougher. Why?
I brought up the Tate case because I feel that mother should have made a deal, and when she didn't the young man suffered a tougher punishment. The same is true for this young man in Utah.
I think we have taken to much away from our judges and we need to think hard and long if that is what we want our society to be or if we need to reel these mandatory laws back to a more reasonable punishment.
To be clear:
This young man deserves jail time, he clearly broke the law, but, laws that were imposed for Kennedy assassins are dated.
I feel that congress has to much leverage in the process.
That making deals while saving the government time and money should be part of the sentencing if the defendant decides to use his right to a trial.
The idea that a rapist and murderer gets less time is something I cannot stand for.
All thought are welcome, again, we know as voting block we can make a difference so lets start making a positive difference.
mandatory-minimum laws **ping**
This is an important subject that I think requires open and honest discussion.
Thanks in advance!
You do the crime, you do the time. If this guy was carrying a gun while doing drug deals, it was (is) only a matter of time until he shot someone.
This was not just about doing drug deals. It is being armed while doing drug deals where people are impaired and violence is extremely likely.
I have no qualms about getting this guy of the street until he is 80 or 180.
"The bulk of that term — the 55 years imposed Tuesday — is based on just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional firearms at his Fort Union apartment. "
Throw away the damn key!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am NOT AT ALL Heart Broken.
There is a reason the CRIME RATE is at 30 or is it 60 year lows.
If one of those drug sales where this guy took his guns, has gone bad, how long would it have taken for him to kill someone else or get killed himself.
This is what these laws are for. You have 3 chances, and if you are too retarted to not stop, you deserve to sit in jail cell for rest of your life.
His age doesn't matter, his crimes do.
probably a relative of this judge of our here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282909/posts
My dear dear oldest child is an alcoholic. He is in recovery. It may take him another course of treatment to recover but right now he's doing well... Today he's doing well. Thank God he has no children. Even when he was in the deepest part of his disease though, he would not have endangered anyone nor owned guns nor sold drugs. Hard to understand.
I'm no expert but it seems to me that the reason there are mandatory minimum sentences is because the public got tired of seeing criminals get minimal punishment and then repeatedly re-offend. The public then leaned on the legislators to do something about it and they passed laws imposing minimum sentences. Democracy in action. Since it is largely the same folks complaining about the harshness of minimum sentencing who supported the politicians who appointed the too-lenient judges in the first place, I say "tough darts!"
My prayers are with him. May God give your courage to help him through it.
I think what really happened here was he did not receive good counsel. His case was hijacked by his lawyers for the purpose of challenging mandatory minimum sentencing. It was win-win for his lawyers - they would either win the case or get a poster child.
"Utah-based rap music label "
That sentence makes me giggle.
Gun laws being enforced properly is the way to decrease gun violence. Mandatory minimums are one of the most important ways we combat the gun control lobby and the gun criminals. And, dealing drugs deserves a harsh punishment. Destroying the lives of others for personal gain is evil.
Notice how the writer goes out of their way NOT to mention what the 16 other charges were? This guy is a career criminal, buw we are supposed to cry big crocadile tears because he leaves a wife and daughter behind while he is kept off the street where he belongs?
slam door, toss key.
There are a lot of people that care about gun rights.
There are a lot more that don't really care about gun rights, but they care about crime.
And then there are anti-gun fanatics.
The anti-gunners have made hay with gun related crimes for a long time and used it to push their anti-gun agenda through.
Laws like this don't help them, and they don't hurt the law-abiding citizen that has a gun. They only apply to criminals that use a gun.
The middle-of-the-roaders like that. It does the gun-rights crowd no harm as it won't apply to you if you don't commit a crime with a gun and it ticks the gun grabbers off because it actually does something about gun crime, namely, get rid of criminals that use guns.
Now, some of these laws have been perveted to cover non-violent "paperwork" crimes, but that's not the case in this instance.
This guy broke the law. And he took a gun with him while doing it. He has a long sentence coming to him.
"First my opinion might be colored as the victim of a violent crime."
I sincerely hope that is not why you are a "Former" Military Chick.
Former Military Dude
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.