Posted on 12/04/2006 2:25:37 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
No, it's like adding extra years because he was carrying a firearm. See the difference? I'm not going to debate the sensibility of gun laws with you because I would probably agree with most of your opinions. Gang members and drug dealers with firearms, that's were we part.
I'm always in favor of harsher sentences. If a guy guilty of rape or murder would get off with less, then jack up the sentence for rape or murder. Don't reduce the sentence for other crimes.
I'm not really talking about the particulars of this case. Most likely, this guy was really a bad guy.
I'm talking about the concept of the law as written.
Sentence him for the crime he committed, not for what was, and remained, in his pocket while he did it.
That is what this seems to indicate. Some liberals have expressed a hope that this is a way to go after guns in the hands of law abiders, to impose these min sentences on misdemeanor offenders, like speeders.
That's what happened. You disagree with the law and the sentencing guidelines. I don't. we can leave it at that.
Ding, we have a winner. Absolutely something that should be changed by legislation, not by judicial fiat.
Well, it could be another drug war thread, but i don't think so. Pot or not, no Libertarian would argue that this guy should get less time just because he happened to be 'under the influence' at the time of the commission of his crimes.
The party of personal responsibility, unlike the statist B@$t@rd$ in the two main parties.
That's exactly correct.
I haven't said anything bad about the courts in this case. They didn't write the laws.
I saw Reefer Madness.
The evil weed must be stopped!!!
</s>
Interesting question. First, I am assuming we have illegal carry in your hypos, like the illegal carry of the drug dealer. I guess one distinction is whether or not the carrying of the gun is facilitates the illegal act. Drug dealers carry guns as part and parcel of of hawking their wares. Guns don't help tax evaders, speeders and embezellers commit their illegal acts. A clearer example would be the bank robber. He may not pull out his gun, but just inform the teller that he has one, and if someone confronts him, intended to pull the gun out, but nobody did, and he didn't.
Drawing distinctions and similarities, and finding distinctions in apparent similarities, and similarities in apparent differences, is the lawyer's stock in trade, and we love it.
Oh yes you do. Not only that, but pot supports the Taliban, and other Islamic terrorists who shoot at our troops with bullets paid for with the money they make off this stuff.
So, if you think smoking pot is harmless, think again. This guy was a pot dealer, who also had firearms offences and was involved in money laundering. He wasn't just a "harmless" pot smoker.
Tell that to the family who lost their son from an IED in Afghanistan this week.
Those IED's are paid for by "harmless" pot smokers. Maybe potheads should think about that before lighting up.
This sad case is a good example of why I don't like hearing the putatively pro-gun side call for harsher enforcement of the laws already on the books. 55 years for non-violent possession isn't just unfair, it's insane. And that's on the books.
This is a heap powerful motive for armed drug dealers to shoot it out with the cops. They don't have much to lose. This law will send more cops to their death.
Link please.
So, if you think smoking pot is harmless, think again. This guy was a pot dealer, who also had firearms offences and was involved in money laundering. He wasn't just a "harmless" pot smoker.
I didn't know about previous firearms offenses but the Taliban, please. They sell Opium, not pot. Pot comes from Mexico and Northern California.
If the law made sense, either:
1) Cigarettes would be illegal.
2) Alcohol would be illegal.
3) Pot would be legal.
I would argue that alcohol has ruined for more lives that pot has.
Deserves what he got, and it's probably not his first felony rap.
LOL! Yeah, the influx of Afghani pot into this country is funding the terrorists.
Whatever you're smoking should be illegal.
We wouldn't need mandatory minimum sentancing if people took their responsibility to elect FAIR judges, and those that appoint them (governors) seriously. Taking discretion away from judges is like taking discretion away from school administratiors (aka zero tolerance).
In both cases people are abdicating their democratic responsibility to take the time to make informed decisions, understand policy, and generally just give a damn.
Do people met out "one size fits all" decisions in their personal lives? Well I suppose some morons do.
Wasn't this in a commercial? I think you're mixing up Heroin with pot. Pot is bulky, getting a ton of it from Afghanistan to the U.S. would cost more than the pot was worth. Heroin is a different story. I don't know what it goes for but I bet a suitcase full of pure Heroin is worth a million dollars or more and that DOES fund the Taliban.
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.