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
Excellent point.
I'm no saint, after getting married and having children I thought it was about time I stop acting the fool and walk the straight and narrow so I did not hurt them or ruin their lives with my foolishness. I could be making lots of money, but I do not want my family to be crying in a courtroom because I decided I was smarter than the law.
Look, the guy was charged and convicted of 29 counts of lawbreaking. And those were only the counts for which he was caught.
I don't care if he is a "young father." I don't care if he is a devoted husband. This wasn't a one-time lapse in judgement -- 29 counts is not a trivial number. He deserves to go to jail for a long time. A loooooong time.
As to the gun violations, the fed is violating their scope of authority. Read the 2nd Ammendment. Screw their guidelines, they have no say what-so-ever in regard to individuals and guns. The states may (should they decide to pass such penalties) but the feds, no. Pound sand, bureaubitches.
Otherwise, we're no longer the United States but Federalvillia, or DCtopia, or SupremeCourtania. Certainly not states united. And when they've effectively neutured your state, guess who's they'll be coming for next? Guard your beanbag.
While I agree with you in theory, it's because our judges, when they used to have full authority to sentence convicted criminals, were all bleeding hearts who believed sob stories and let them off. No, most judges are products of law schools with liberal, leftist, and socialist philosophies and I don't trust any of them.
FYI, the judge in this case proves my point. He, too, is another liberal.
Q.E.D.
A couple of points:
First off, the guy knew full well that doing the drug dealing WITHOUT a gun would have made his crime, and thus any sentence if he's caught, lesser. Yet he made a conscious decision to pack heat. That kind of deliberation can't be ignored.
Secondly, he had no concern for his family or his liberty when he made that conscious decision. The guy started his own business. I don't think he's ignorant. Therefore it can be determined that he is either an idiot or completely unconcerned about his family or his life. No matter which way, he still needs to be locked away for as close to 'EVER' as possible.
Finally, the judge carrying on about the election influencing the sentence can be looked at as positive. Here 2 weeks out from the election, we already have processed about 10% of the gun crime that the whole 8 year Clinton Administration did. That the laws are being enforced and the criminals are being punished is what virtually all of the RKBA movement has been calling for for since God invented Anti's. Let the grabbers drag this man's family through the media and place them on the very top of the victim hill for all to see; the more potential criminals see them, the less likely they'll be to carry out their crimes.
That the gun was stolen is a serious crime.
However, the way the law is written implies that criminals lose the right to self defense with a firearm while committing a crime. Does the same law apply to knives? Baseball bats? Automobiles?
Too many gun laws are written to penalize me for what I MIGHT do with a gun despite my right to keep and bear arms. I am against laws which punish people for what they might do.
He shouldn't have received a sentence for anything.
I didn't read where he assaulted anyone or stole their property.
This is a tough issue. When discretion is added, disparity develops. Also, some judges always see some redeeming feature of the defendant; it is always the same judges.
"The reason he DESERVES his disproportional sentence (although I wish rest of the scum you listed would get even higher sentences), is that what he is doing is going to result in PERPETUAL evil. Hijackers, Murderers, Kidnappers, and Rapist, although ALL MORE EVIL than others, commit their one act or series of acts and then they are Done."
A rapist rapes once and then he's done? I'll tell you another difference between a guy who sells pot and these other criminals. When one of these other criminals gets caught and put in prison, lives are saved. Unlike the pot seller, in most cases people aren't out there raping and killing for money. When they are taken off the streets, we are all a little safer. When some guy who sells pot is taken off the streets, the people who were buying from him will just buy it from someone else. Don't think his rapper buddies aren't just buying their sacks of "Chronic" from someone else now.
You and me, brother. Specially when some fed is stepping out of bounds.
Ah the unintended consequences of liberalism...it is the actions of the liberal judges in the past that produced manditory terms. Had they been reasonable then, they could be reasonable now.
"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. "
Ok. Here are the facts as they are presented. The majority of the 55 years are coming from three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales. That means that the guy sold drugs with a gun, got caught, convicted, and did it again. Then maybe the third charge is a gun at his place, illegally.
The facts say the majority of the 55 years, so that could mean 30 years or more for carrying a gun while dealing drugs on multiple occassions. The drug in question is pot. The man has a long series of charges against him as well - 16 - and these are the only ones named.
I'd like to know what the other charges are. Looking back and reading this a second time I think that those 16 other charges - although not as significant in time as the act of carrying the gun itself while selling drugs - would demonstrate within his character the propensity for violence. As such, upon closer reflection from my earlier post, I'd have to say that when you combine carrying a weapon, selling drugs, and demonstrating a propensity for violence that nothing good is going to come out of it, and locking this guy up for life is probably not a bad thing.
TKDietz says " Unlike the pot seller, in most cases people aren't out there raping and killing for money. When they are taken off the streets, we are all a little safer. When some guy who sells pot is taken off the streets, the people who were buying from him will just buy it from someone else. Don't think his rapper buddies aren't just buying their sacks of "Chronic" from someone else now."
...and that's a very good point. Pot is honestly having the same kind of problems that Prohibition did, and I think we might see the legalization of pot in the not so distant future.
And how many laws did *you* break today?
It is humanly impossible to know all the edicts, much less follow them (think of traffic laws, etc....).
What is particularly disturbing here is that there was no victim. The "victim" was the state. (It is interesting to note that in the Soviet Union crimes against the state were punished much more severely than crimes against individuals. We appear to be on the same path).
Yes, he's a scumbag for selling drugs, but so is a teacher that distributes Ritalin like M&Ms. That doesn't mean he should spend 50 years in jail, at a cost of $50K per year.
As for justice, our current system is a joke, and only benefits lawyers, politicians, and predatory criminals. A much better system would be one that only recognized crimes as acts of violence, theft, or fraud, committed against other individuals.
Punishment for severe acts of violence or theft (such a stealing a man's car or his identity) should be swift death.
Punishment for lesser property crimes should be restitution to the victim, similar to the Japanese system.
And the Right of a Free man or woman to use deadly force to defend themselves or their property should be recognized once again.
These measures would reduce "real" crime significantly. Of course, they would also reduce the need for so many judges, lawyers, and politicians, so they will likely never be enacted.
Okay, you convinced me.
Execute all the perps.
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.