Supreme Court Lets Stand 55-Year Jail Term

AP & Newsday ^ | 12/4/06 | n/a

[kiriath_jearim]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a mandatory 55-year prison sentence, condemned as excessive by the federal judge who imposed it, for a man convicted of carrying a handgun during three marijuana deals.

Record producer Weldon Angelos received the minimum sentence under the law -- a harsher sentence than a child rapist or a terrorist who detonates a bomb aboard an aircraft would receive, according to his attorneys. The justices, without comment, left the prison term undisturbed.

Angelos was convicted of 16 counts of violating federal firearms, drug and money laundering laws in 2003. The charges stemmed from his sale of three 8-ounce bags of marijuana to an undercover informant.

He had a gun but never brandished or used it. Nevertheless, the three counts of possession of a firearm in a drug transaction required the mandatory minimum sentence.

Four former attorneys general and 145 former prosecutors and judges wrote in support of a lighter sentence for Angelos. Even the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, an appointee of President Bush, called the sentence "unjust, cruel and irrational." But he said the law left him no choice.

Prosecutors said the sentence was appropriate and an appeals court agreed.

The case is Angelos v. U.S., 06-26.

[dead]

TONS of HASH and oil comes from there. Yes, it funds TERRORISM, and the terrorists operating there are the Taliban. Keep smoking, makes you smart obviously.

No matter what I smoke, I'm obviously smarter than you.

The percentage of marijuana purchased by the American consumer that is produced in Afghanistan is so low it can't even be measured.

The Afghanis do produce hashish, which is sold almost exclusively in Afghanistan, Asia and Europe.

If you have evidence to the contrary, produce it, or stop yapping. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Mr. Jeeves]

The point is that Democrat politicians fear any gun in private hands might one day be used to enforce Romanian Term Limits against themselves.

[Lx]

Funny how you didn't mention hash until I did.
Why, because slow as it took, it must have dawned on you that importing tons of pot from Afghanistan is probably not worth it when we have such local supplies.

It really helps your argument when you stoop to accusing other people of smoking pot or being high on it because they don't buy your B.S.

[Nova442]

It seems odd that carrying a gun, not using it, while selling drugs gets you 55 years whereas carrying a gun, shooting someone to death, committing murder, gets you 25.

[paul51]

Why do you hate guns so much?

I don't know where you got the notion I hate guns. It's the concept of firearms in the hands of felons and thugs I have a problem with. Do you not care about that?

[Smogger]

I didn't say that a judge should overturn a mandatory minimum sentence.

What I said is that they are poorly conceived, written, and reactionary, and that offend people's sense of justice and foster disrespect for the law.

Furthermore, since most judges are elected. Your point that the legislature is more responsive only reinforces my position, that people are too lazy to discharge their civic duty to pick fair ones and voting out morons.

[zendari]

Agreed. 5 years at most for this.

[JeffAtlanta]

It's the concept of firearms in the hands of felons and thugs I have a problem with. Do you not care about that?

Not unless they are USED to facilitate a crime. You seem to have a problem with the 2nd amendment as do most liberals and social conservatives.

What do you care if a person has a gun while they do something illegal if that gun isn't part of the criminal act? If a person gets pulled over for a DUI, do you think the penalty should be enhanced if he has a gun with him?

I have no problem with enhancing the penalty if a person uses a weapon to facilitate a crime but not for simple possession if the possession is simply incidental like in the case in the article.

If the guy was a felon and was violating the law for possessing a gun then he should be charged for that, but in this case, his being a felon had nothing to do with it so it is fallacious for you to use that argument.

[paul51]

You seem to think felons and gang members should be allowed to possess firearms as long as they don't use them. As I said, I disagree. I don't understand how you can equate that to me having a problem with the 2nd amendment.

[Lexington Green]

It's a time of tooth and claw
When the law is a crime
And a crime is the law

[supercat]

You seem to think felons and gang members should be allowed to possess firearms as long as they don't use them.

If someone is made a slave of a state as a consequence of a felony conviction (such slavery is legal under the Thirteenth Amendment), then as a slave that person has no right to keep and bear arms (I don't think anyone in 1787 would have argued that the Second Amendment applied to slaves).

Laws restricting armament of felons would be constitutional if they were written in such terms (subject to ex-post-facto restructions and such). For some reason, though, Sarah Brady et al. don't seem to want to associate disarmament and slavery. Curious...

Also, with few exceptions, convicted criminals who would be dangerous with a gun, and who would not voluntarily refrain from getting one, are sufficiently dangerous that they shouldn't be let out of prison; forbidding them from owning a gun will do nothing to change that.

[paul51]

We are not talking about slaves. We are talking about drug dealing gang members. Perhaps you think they too have been victimized by the state.

[supercat]

We are not talking about slaves. We are talking about drug dealing gang members. Perhaps you think they too have been victimized by the state.

The only legitimate way for the government to disarm people is to enslave them. It has the authority to enslave convicted felons, and should probably use that authority.

There is no legitimate basis for the government to disarm free persons.

[TKDietz]

"Anyone who thinks liberalism has not permeated and ruined out judicial system, has their head in the sand...or elsewhere. Child molestors (multiple) get six month sentences while this beggar gets 55 years. There is just too much left in the hands of the LIBERAL ACTIVISTS on the bench -- they are dangerous and should be replaced."

This wasn't a sentence by a liberal activist making law on the bench. This judge's hands were tied. He had no choice but to hand down this sentence and he didn't like doing it at all. He complained about it on the bench because it was a much harsher sentence than he has to give for much worse crimes.

As for liberalism permeating and ruining our criminal justice system, it's not as bad as you think. I am a criminal defense attorney. I've handled thousands of criminal cases and have practiced in front of an awful lot of different judges. In real life crazy liberal judges letting people off left and right are in the distinct minority. I never seem to run across them. Sometimes I wish I would. In real life judges tend to be prosecutors in black robes who seem to want to see everyone who comes before them on criminal charges convicted and punished. They don't presume anyone to be innocent until proven guilty. They want people to shut up and plead guilty. They'll go along with most any deal worked out between the prosecutor and the defense attorney, and if they refuse to accept a deal it's not going to be because the punishment is too harsh, it will be because the judge feels the punishment is not harsh enough. And of course anyone who goes to trial will more likely than not get a far harsher sentence than if he had pled, because judges want it to be clear that there is a penalty for wasting their time with trials. That's how it tends to happen in real life even though you don't hear that much about it. The stories that get big write ups in the news and make it on these forums are the out of the ordinary ones, the inflammatory stories. They don't really reflect what is really going on in most parts of this country as a general rule.

[TChris]

It's a statutory mess, not a judicial one. Legislators need to fix it.

[TKDietz]

"Prosecutors said the sentence was appropriate and an appeals court agreed."

Prosecutors will almost always say this about harsh sentences. They'll always push for statutes with harsher sentences too. This isn't because they all believe harsher sentences are warranted. It's because they want people to shut up and plead. The higher the possible sentence, the easier it is to get people to accept fairly long prison terms and plead guilty. Longer potential sentences make it such that they have to try even fewer cases (only about two and a half percent of all felony cases ever make it to trial in this country). I don't know that folks are deterred from committing crimes so much by longer sentences. If the thought of going to prison for a few years doesn't deter them then they aren't likely to be deterred by the possibility of doing longer than a few years. Most of them are convinced they'll never get caught anyway, especially when it comes to drug crimes where there are no victims or witnesses who will come forward and alert the police to the fact that a crime has been committed, provide evidence for a conviction and demand that the police do something. People are though certainly deterred from taking their cases to trial if they do get caught and the potential sentence is a really long one, much longer than they could get get with a plea bargain. And of course most all plea offers involve punishments significantly than a person could get at trial.

[TKDietz]

"And of course most all plea offers involve punishments significantly than a person could get at trial.

Should say: "And of course most all plea offers involve punishments significantly _lower_ than a person could get at trial.

[Finny]

Thanks for the explanation.