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
He did and I agree having a gun in the commsision of a crime is well illegal.
He did not brandish it but had the weapons and for that he should serve time, perhaps what I am getting at is to give our judges some flexibility.
I think of the nanny case who went across all and changed the outcome, wrong or right I admire him for taking the chance to do his duty.
"A rapist: 87 months."
In my opinion, rape is among the most foul crimes possible and should be accompanied with Capital Punishment.
Criminals + drugs + guns = loss of life for society. Criminals + jails = safer society.
Do the crime, do the time.
It's not just that. These gangsta rappas don't just sell drugs. Infinitely worse is that they sell the whole idea of gang violence, drug trafficking and gun running to our kids. They have the freedom to sing that crap rap under the 1st Amendment, but the moment they step INTO the exact life of crime they're selling, they're fair game.
The kids who BUY the image of gang violence and organized crime, sold by people like Angelo for HUGE profits, as "romantic" sure as heck would have the book thrown at them because they're nobodies. Why should the puke encouraging them to throw their lives away be any different?
Hikacking the criminality of the multiple charges against him into one issue pony, straight anti-WOD case is silly. He was dabbling in organized crime, not buying an ounce for recreational use. Anti-WOD people would be wise to choose a different poster child.
And what we got was multiple murderers and pedophiles being given 3 year sentences, eligible for parole in 4 months.
Mandatory sentencing laws come from the Legislature, where the people have some say. This is better than bleeding-heart lefty judges who are nearly unaccountable having this power.
Federal Judge Rules Application of Sentencing Guidelines Unconstitutional
Do the crime, do the time. Goodbye and good riddance to Mr. Angelos.
It is so classic, take an extreme case and then say the rule should be eliminated. Liberal judges have lost the right to have discression in sentencing, because they let criminals off to easy. If we have tough laws with long prison terms some will be deterred from committing crime and those that aren't bright enough to not commit crimes will do long prison times, either way my family and I are safer.
It's hard to have a lot of pity for a grown man with a wife and family who would be so dumb.
It is so classic, take an extreme case and then say the rule should be eliminated. Liberal judges have lost the right to have discression in sentencing, because they let criminals off to easy. If we have tough laws with long prison terms some will be deterred from committing crime and those that aren't bright enough to not commit crimes will do long prison times, either way my family and I are safer.
It's hard to have a lot of pity for a grown man with a wife and family who would be so dumb.
It is so classic, take an extreme case and then say the rule should be eliminated. Liberal judges have lost the right to have discression in sentencing, because they let criminals off to easy. If we have tough laws with long prison terms some will be deterred from committing crime and those that aren't bright enough to not commit crimes will do long prison times, either way my family and I are safer.
It's hard to have a lot of pity for a grown man with a wife and family who would be so dumb.
I find "Utah-based rap music label" to be a bit thought-provoking.
That aside, I'm very sorry for the man's young children, but not at all sorry he's going to jail for a very long time.
But on the other hand, on states' rights ground, I agree that the Federal government has assumed too much control over criminal law. It's not in the Constitution.
FMC, what the hell do you think the guns were for? They were going to go smoke some of the drugs and then hang out shooting pigeons? The guns were there to kill someone if the deal went sour. He had the intent to commit murder if it helped him leverage his deal.
Besides, he was a rap producer. That alone oughtta get you 15 to life.
Second, these sentences do NOT act as deterents. No one commits a crime and thinks they are going to get caught, so the punishment is not as issue.
Next, this guy is an exception, not the rule. Where I work, people are put through the system routinely, slapped on the wrist and sent back on the streets. The system is overloaded.
A couple of weeks ago, we had a drug dealer get shot. It was found that he had a gun on him, but the DA chose not to prosecute him b/c the poor guy got shot, and the DA wanted to use him as a witness against the guy who shot him. Two weeks later, the guy who got shot killed a guy at 5pm on a Sunday next to a playground. I happened to be about 200 feet away at the time but that doesn't matter. The fact is, these criminals are animals and would shoot their own momma if it would put $20 in their pocket. I don't care how many of their crying, soon-to-be-perp kids you put in the courtroom.
Throw away the key.
Looks like it depends on the offender.
Agreed. Drugs are the knife that is ripping apart our society.
One of many knives...
I think your other examples demonstrate that violent criminals receive sentences that are too short. This partiular individual was not some high school kid selling a little to his friends. He was selling retail to (since he clearly sold to someone undercover) anyone with the cash to pay.
found at: http://www.drug-addiction.com/news/marijuana-sentencing-debate.htm
Sentencing Debate Raised in Marijuana Case
A 63-year prison sentence given in a first-offense drug case involving a gun has stirred up the debate over mandatory minimum sentences, the New York Times reported Sept. 12.
Weldon Angelos, 25, received the harsh sentence because he was carrying a gun when he sold several hundred dollars worth of marijuana on three separate occasions.
..snip..
Like I said, he wasn't some kid selling a dime bag to a friend. He was moving volume. My guess is he came up on the DEA radar screen and they got him.
I googled "killed" and "drug deal" and got "about 21,700" hits. There seems to be a pattern there even after removing the non-applicable links.
He's no victim. He made his choice and it was very, very wrong. Now he gets the consequence.
Crank up the sentences on the other types of violent behavior, if anything. Keep them off the streets.
Yes there are others but drugs are the root cause of everything from small time crime to big time murder. My feeling are if you are a drug dealer "Lockem up and throw away the key PERIOD".
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.