Posted on 06/22/2005 3:25:38 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
A day after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended mandatory federal sentencing laws, four of his predecessors filed a court brief Wednesday saying a Utah drug dealer received an unconstitutionally long prison term.
More than 150 other ex-Justice Department officials also signed the "friend of the court" brief with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which seeks to overturn a 55-year sentence given to a man for carrying a pistol during a string of marijuana deals.
Weldon Angelos, 25, of Salt Lake City, was convicted in 2003 of three counts of possessing a firearm while involved in a drug deal, as well as 13 other drug and money-laundering charges. He had no prior convictions.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Rimm wrote in the brief that Congress has the right to enact mandatory minimum sentences, but the sentence Angelos received was "grossly disproportionate" to the crime and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
Signing the brief were former attorneys general Janet Reno, Benjamin Civiletti, Griffin Bell and Nicholas Katzenbach; former FBI director William S. Sessions; and numerous other former prosecutors and judges.
"The main thing is that it is a case in which the result is so startling that everybody just agreed that it should not be something that should be tolerated in a humane society," said John Martin Jr., a former U.S. attorney and district judge who also signed the brief.
The U.S. attorney's office in Utah has not yet filed its arguments with the appeals court, and spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch declined to comment.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that federal sentencing guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory.
On Tuesday, Gonzales said that since the ruling, there is evidence of growing disparity in jail terms and "a drift toward lesser sentences." He urged Congress to approve new punishment guidelines.
In sentencing Angelos in November, federal Judge Paul Cassell called the 55-year term for the firearms counts "unjust, cruel and irrational," but said he had no choice.
He noted the term was longer than federal sentences for kidnapping, rape, aircraft hijacking and even second-degree murder.
If this is an "unusually long term", then I would say that the penalty ought to be increased.
Don't need to read farther than this..
I disagree (believe it or not). While I don't know the full details of the case, given only what's shown in this article, 55 years is excessive.
The guy's 23. With a 55 year sentence, he gets out at 78 (assuming no parole). Considering the crime, that's insane. Sure, punish him, but I'm thinking 5 years would be sufficient until he becomes a repeat offender.
Sorry. Meant 25. That means he gets out at 80.
My view is give him life. I don't have much sympathy for criminals.
I think it would have been equally stupid of him to conduct a drug deal WITHOUT a firearm. You need protection when you are dealing with criminals. Its not you can just take their word that they aren't going to kill you and rip you off.
The founding fathers would have pegged anyone wishing to outlaw a 'weed' as a dangerous idiot....mj should be legal.
The 2nd amendment lets him tote a pistol...
So give him carfare and an apology and send his ass home.
Yep, keep letting him out until he kills someone. The idea of harsh sentencing is to keep people from becoming repeat offenders and, mainly, to keep them from commiting the first crime. If this guy had known he could get 55 years for what he did, do you think you he would have thought it over a little better? Maybe not, but sentences like this one will keep some people from doing the crime.
Yeah, let us give "life" to every criminal. That way we will be able to make keep countless millions people in prison, create millions of new jobs and provide huge proftis for the prison industry. Way to go man.
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful! They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound. Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking. And when they call themselves "the good and just," forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but--power!
("On the Tarantulas," from Thus Spake Zarathustra)
Maybe MJ should be legal but it is not. The second amendment gives law abiding citizens the right to carry arms. Criminals caught carrying while committng crimes have no such right, or maybe you think robbing a bank is ok because the second gives the bank robbers the right to carry. If you want MJ to be legal then work for the legislation, run from congress or whatever you have to do, in the meantime it is illegal and therefore the law has to be obeyed. The large sentence was for carrying while committing the crime, not for selling MJ.
Lot of states have harsher sentences for carrying while committing felonies and that's fine with me.
I would not have thrown him in jail because of the firearm. I would have given him life for the drug deal.
Of course, I would like to repeal the marijuana laws... But not because of him. I think anyone who violates one law, no matter how stupid, is likely to violate another.
Let him rot.
Actually, he gave himself life. He was offered a deal for 15 years and he turned it down. Dumdum could have negotiated that down to about 8 and did his time. His lawyer knew about the mandatory minimums for carrying during a crime. Dumdums lawyer is als a dumdum evidently. 55 years is excessive but breaking the law repeatedly is also excessive. While I believe weed should be decriminalized I also believe that criminals carrying guns to drug deals is a bad idea. Bush should pardon him down to a reasonable sentence though. But next time he carries while committing a crime, goodbye.
The more time they serve, the fewer times they can recycle through "the system", resulting in a decrease in prosecutions, defenses, court time, and other endangerments to employment in "the system".
None of these people, from judges down to the lowliest law clerk, social worker, or parole officer benefits if case loads drop, so OF COURSE salting away any criminal...including pedophiles...is protested.
It is "workfare" for lawyers, and lawyer wannbees, of all stipes to give short, meaningless sentences.
You spent a lot of time writing that.... And I suppose you think I'm going to waste my time reading it?????
There'd be no parole. Federal Courts have "truth in sentencing" rules. You serve every day of your sentence.
Bush won. Boo!! lololol.
Made you look, didn't he? :)
"Laws" beyond the reading of the Second Amd. provide for that, the Second doesn't make that distinction. If not for the WOsD's and the WOsD Users, there would be no crime at all. Your statement is lame. Blackbird.
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.