Harsh New Drug Bill About to Be Introduced in House 11/21/03

[GladiatoRowdy]

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/312/harsh.shtml

One of Congress's staunchest drug warriors, Rep. Mark Souder, is at it again. The Indiana Republican best known for authoring the Higher Education Act's anti-drug provision is about to introduce legislation that would jam federal prisons even more full of drug offenders. The bill, called with Orwellian flair the "Drug Sentencing Reform Act," is set to be introduced within the next two weeks, and Souder is looking for cosponsors, reported the Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org), which has two staffers working Capitol Hill full-time and which is organizing to kill the bill.
According to an explanation of the bill provided in a Souder e-mail to his colleagues his legislation would:

• Expand the purview of the Feeney Amendment, which restricts federal judges' ability to reduce sentences, to include drug offenses.
• Mandate random drug testing for almost all federal parolees and probationers, not just drug offenders or people suspected of having substance abuse problems.
• Direct the US Sentencing Commission to no longer allow lower sentences for nonviolent drug offenders who have certain mitigating circumstances (such as being addicted to drugs) or who lack previous criminal records.
• Create harsh new penalties for growing "high-potency" marijuana.

"This was a little holiday surprise," said Bill Piper, legislative director at DPA's Washington office, "and it's not a very pleasant one. This bill is overwhelmingly bad," he told DRCNet, "it's all sentencing and no reform. This bill continues a trend of tying the hands of judges and preventing them from reducing sentences for drug offenders. Not only will more people go to prison for longer stays, the taxpayers will have to pay for it."

The sentencing provisions are not the only provisions that will leave taxpayers clutching their wallets, Piper said. "The mandatory drug testing provision will also cost," he said. "Right now, judges have discretion on ordering testing, and they usually only impose a drug testing condition on parolees who have drug charges or a substance abuse problem, but this bill would require everyone on supervised release to have drug tests, even if there is no reason to believe they might be using drugs. It costs money to test every single federal parolee or probationer," Piper explained.

And while corrections departments in the states are moving to rein in the practice of returning parolees to prison for "administrative" violations such as failing a drug test (see California newsbrief this issue), federal drug testing will be used to re-imprison thousands of nonviolent drug offenders for years, Piper added. There is an exception for some federal misdemeanors or if prosecutors move to waive drug testing. "When is that going to happen?" Piper asked. "The states are trying to fix this problem, but Souder is moving in the opposite direction."

And then there's Souder's continuing war on marijuana. Long a loud opponent of medical marijuana, Souder has crafted a "high-potency" pot provision seemingly designed to be used against medical marijuana grows in states where the practice is legal. According to the bill's draft, marijuana growing offenders will be sentenced not just on the weight of the drug but according to its potency. Souder's bill creates three classes of high potency pot, between 6 and 13% THC, 13-25% THC, and greater than 25% THC.

The changes in sentencing for high-potency growers would be dramatic under the Souder bill. For instance, if someone grew 50 plants in California as part of a medical marijuana program, under current law he could be sentenced to up to 20 years in federal prison. Under the Souder bill, the same grower would face a mandatory minimum 5-year sentence and a maximum 40-year sentence.

"This is really about the cultural war on marijuana," said Piper. "They know they're losing the battle in terms of public support for the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. Both Souder and John Walters like to talk about 'super-pot,' not your father's pot, this dangerous high-potency stuff. They also want to go after the pot co-ops, and it's easier to say they're going after dangerous, high-potency marijuana than it is for them to argue that we need increased marijuana penalties across the board."

Medical marijuana users smoke marijuana with high THC concentrations because it works better for them, said Piper. "It is ironic that Souder would discourage people from using stronger marijuana. People using more potent pot smoke less, and that's good for their health. Souder is encouraging people to grow and smoke low-quality pot, which means marijuana smokers will just smoke more."

That provision also provoked the Marijuana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org) to jump in to oppose the bill. "This bill is a direct threat to the health of patients and to the caregivers and loved ones who assist them," said Steve Fox, MPP director of government relations. "Souder should call his bill the Lung Disease Promotion Act of 2003. The only serious health risks associated with marijuana use involve lung problems like bronchitis caused by the tars in smoke, and research has shown that users of higher-THC marijuana inhale less of those contaminants."

While Souder scurries around seeking cosponsors, DPA is gearing up to ensure that he finds few or none. "We're doing a whole bunch of things to blunt this bill," said Piper. "We're encouraging people to call their representatives and tell them not to cosponsor, we've contacted congressional offices with the same message, we've faxed every congressional office a one-page analysis, and we're working to get media around so people are too embarrassed to become cosponsors," he explained.
Visit http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/SouderEmail.pdf to view a copy of the Souder e-mail.

[GladiatoRowdy]

And the hits just keep on coming.

[GreenVegan76]

Ah, yes: wasting tax dollars arresting, charging, imprisoning and paroling people who only threaten pints of ice cream and boxes of twinkies.

Nice.

[mateo]

I dont even smoke pot and I find this offensive, wasteful, and basically retarded.

[bamaslammer]

Ugggh....... If the Republicans had any good sense, they would just leave this alone.

[GreenVegan76]

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Ugggh....... If the Republicans had any good sense, they would just leave this alone.

This isn't just a "Republican" issue. Democrats pile on, too. These guys will do anything to make themselves look (ugh) tough on drugs, i.e., crime. It's insulting to our intelligence, really.

I still don't understand -- it's legal to have a gun, as long as you don't hurt anybody. But it's illegal to have drugs, even if they don't hurt anybody.

Ending prohibition, even in small stages (and only for certain drugs like marijuana), would free up tens of *billions* of dollars in this country. Just imagine the money, time and resources police spend investigating, hunting, arresting and charging these non-violent people who do nothing more than smoke a joint.

Then, these cases clog up the judicial system, costing more money, time and resources. Then, if found "guilty," they're sent to prison, where even MORE money, time and resources are wasted.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

[underoverup]

Prisons make a great deal of money for those involved -- with the privatization of the institutions there is even greater profit to be made. Non-violent drug offenders are much easier to house and control than violent individuals. This is why the “war on drugs” will never end and will only get worse - particularly for people who use or grow “super pot” :rolleyes: (that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard). Marihuana users are such an easy target, perfect to fill prisons and the foolish American public will eat up comments like "super weed", "devil weed", and other ludicrous terms meant to scare people into supporting asinine drug laws.

[thadeus]

Another spurt of ****ty legislation designed for soundbites:

"The American voters can look at my record and see that I have taken action to keep our children safe from drugs."

Then, a gaggle of moronic Americans respond:

"Yeah, I like keeping children safe too! What a swell guy! And he looks nicer than the other candidate, and he doesn't look smart enough to be threatening! He gets my vote for sure!"


Rep. Mark Souder only puts this ridiculous legislation forward because he believes it will appeal to voters who will keep him in power.

To the morons who are registered to vote, Indiana and elsewhere:

Please, please, please stop encouraging them.

[bamaslammer]

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
This isn't just a "Republican" issue. Democrats pile on, too. These guys will do anything to make themselves look (ugh) tough on drugs, i.e., crime. It's insulting to our intelligence, really.

I still don't understand -- it's legal to have a gun, as long as you don't hurt anybody. But it's illegal to have drugs, even if they don't hurt anybody.

Ending prohibition, even in small stages (and only for certain drugs like marijuana), would free up tens of *billions* of dollars in this country. Just imagine the money, time and resources police spend investigating, hunting, arresting and charging these non-violent people who do nothing more than smoke a joint.

Then, these cases clog up the judicial system, costing more money, time and resources. Then, if found "guilty," they're sent to prison, where even MORE money, time and resources are wasted.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

I couldn't have said it better, great post GV76.....and ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!!!!!

[ZRB]

Is there any chance of this bullsh*t passing and becoming law?

[mrpaige]

Even putting aside that this is drug legislation, I hate the Congress overstepping the separation by mandating sentences and attempting to take away the ability of judges or juries from setting the penalties they deem appropriate.

The big problem with these types of sentencing requirements is that there are times when at least some level of leeway needs to be allowed to properly administer justice. One size never fits all. And it is part of the job of the judicial branch to determine appropriate sentences in each individual case.

[TheFreak]

All I see is an article from "stopthedrugwar.org", and a bunch of quotes from some website called "drugpolicy.org" which has "two staffers working Capitol Hill full-time and which is organizing to kill the bill"...is this supposed to be an objective story?

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by TheFreak
All I see is an article from "stopthedrugwar.org", and a bunch of quotes from some website called "drugpolicy.org" which has "two staffers working Capitol Hill full-time and which is organizing to kill the bill"...is this supposed to be an objective story?

No, this is an article about the bill that Souder is trying to pass. If you care to defend the drug war, please go ahead, but the fact remains that Souder is going to try to get this bill passed just as he has pushed other draconian drug laws in the past. He is the guy who took federal financial aid away from students caught violating drug laws. Rapists, burglers, and armed robbers can get financial aid, but a kid caught with a joint can't.

What should be objective is our drug policy.

[GreenVegan76]

Originally posted by mrpaige
Even putting aside that this is drug legislation, I hate the Congress overstepping the separation by mandating sentences and attempting to take away the ability of judges or juries from setting the penalties they deem appropriate.

The big problem with these types of sentencing requirements is that there are times when at least some level of leeway needs to be allowed to properly administer justice. One size never fits all. And it is part of the job of the judicial branch to determine appropriate sentences in each individual case.

Excellent points. "Mandatory" sentences take the law out of the judges' hands and essentially give Congress control of the judicial system. That, in and of itself, is a scary step too often taken by politicians.

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by mrpaige
Even putting aside that this is drug legislation, I hate the Congress overstepping the separation by mandating sentences and attempting to take away the ability of judges or juries from setting the penalties they deem appropriate.

The big problem with these types of sentencing requirements is that there are times when at least some level of leeway needs to be allowed to properly administer justice. One size never fits all. And it is part of the job of the judicial branch to determine appropriate sentences in each individual case.

i straddle the fence on this
because
it seens. . .. rich folx get LEEWAY [see GW BUSH[
poor folx get prison

So I kind of like mandatory sentences
everyone get the same no matter their
social political status
but then again . . .rich folx's lawyers will get around it

In america you get as much justice as you can afford

Rocket River

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by Rocket River
i straddle the fence on this
because
it seens. . .. rich folx get LEEWAY [see GW BUSH[
poor folx get prison

So I kind of like mandatory sentences
everyone get the same no matter their
social political status
but then again . . .rich folx's lawyers will get around it

In america you get as much justice as you can afford

Rocket River

Ironically enough, back in the 70's when mandatory sentencing guidelines were popularized and eventually implemented, this was the prevailing theory behind them.

However as implemented on the federal (and state, such as the draconian rockefeller drug laws) level they have been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster. You get a public dfender and you are getting the maximum or a bad pleal, you get a good lawyer and you get a good plea; and don't get caught with crack cocaine, whatever you do.

Most people who have any experience with the criminal justice system within the legal establishment, from defense lawyer types like Alan Dershowitz to right wing, hard on crime types like William Rehnquist have all said that the federal sentencing guidelines are a horrible idea and are basically unjust and thrown out the window.

Unfortunately, they remain popular for politicians who can just endorse them and get them passed and then don't ever have to deal with the consequences and appear "tough on crime". More like "stupid on crime".

[Deckard]

Originally posted by mrpaige
Even putting aside that this is drug legislation, I hate the Congress overstepping the separation by mandating sentences and attempting to take away the ability of judges or juries from setting the penalties they deem appropriate.

The big problem with these types of sentencing requirements is that there are times when at least some level of leeway needs to be allowed to properly administer justice. One size never fits all. And it is part of the job of the judicial branch to determine appropriate sentences in each individual case.
Excellent.
I keep hoping that the Supreme Court will step in and declare things like this a violation of the separation of powers aspect of the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but the increasingly intrusive role of Congress and the Executive branch regarding the Judicial system seems "out of order". Any thoughts on that from our "legal experts"... like MadMax?

[StupidMoniker]

I think I will have to support this bill. This aligns pretty well with my stance on our drug laws. Obviously what we have now is not working. I would ideally like there to be no drug laws. While we have the laws on the books though, I think we should give them as much bite as possible. There should be mandatory jail time for any amount of any illegal drug. That is how you fight drugs. If we as a nation are not ready to move to legalized drugs (we're not, unfortunately) then we need to make the consequences of being in contact with drugs so bad that it is just not worth it.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I think I will have to support this bill. This aligns pretty well with my stance on our drug laws. Obviously what we have now is not working. I would ideally like there to be no drug laws. While we have the laws on the books though, I think we should give them as much bite as possible. There should be mandatory jail time for any amount of any illegal drug. That is how you fight drugs. If we as a nation are not ready to move to legalized drugs (we're not, unfortunately) then we need to make the consequences of being in contact with drugs so bad that it is just not worth it.

Once again, you chime in with a nonsensical argument that belies logic and reason. You claim that you would like there to be no drug laws and go on to say that if there ARE drug laws, they should be as draconian as possible. You try to argue that giving the drug laws "bite" is the most appropriate way to "fight drugs." Your argument is lacking in that no matter the consequence or punishment, drug use in this country has not fluctuated much at all.

Mandatory minimum sentences have the effect of putting low level drug users and dealers in jail for long periods of time even when they may have been only peripherally involved. These sentencing schemes have also increased our prison budgets and mandated that we keep building more and more jails every year to house our "criminals."

If, historically, harsher penalties had ANY effect on levels of drug use, your argument might hold water, but as it is, your unthinking, knee-jerk approach will only serve to further bankrupt this country and continue to fuel the war between police and the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

[GreenVegan76]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I think I will have to support this bill. This aligns pretty well with my stance on our drug laws. Obviously what we have now is not working. I would ideally like there to be no drug laws. While we have the laws on the books though, I think we should give them as much bite as possible. There should be mandatory jail time for any amount of any illegal drug. That is how you fight drugs. If we as a nation are not ready to move to legalized drugs (we're not, unfortunately) then we need to make the consequences of being in contact with drugs so bad that it is just not worth it.

I get what you're saying, and see the reasoning behind it. But I'm not sure the approach is the best way to handle things. In essense, this is the exact approach the government has taken the last 20 years -- and it's an absolute failure.

The court systems need more flexibility, not less. Mandatory sentencing often removes common sense from trials, and puts Congress on the bench. This is especially dangerous because Congress works with a *totally* different set of rules and politics -- the courts should be absolutely impartial to politics.

Congress sets the rules, but shouldn't interpret them, too.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by andymoon
Once again, you chime in with a nonsensical argument that belies logic and reason. You claim that you would like there to be no drug laws and go on to say that if there ARE drug laws, they should be as draconian as possible.

How does that belie logic and reason? I happen to think that most of the punishments in our criminal justice system are too light. We are far too concerned about the rights of criminals. I don't have to worry about what the penalties prescribed for breaking laws are, because I can choose not to break the law. I know it is a cliche, but if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. No one is making anyone smoke pot, snort coke, shoot up, etc.

Seperate from my feelings on how our criminal justice system should work, I also have views on what the laws of our country should be. There are many laws that I don't think are necessary. I also unerstand that it is not up to me to chose which laws to follow. If I break the law, I am accepting the consequences. If I don't believe in a law (and feel strongly enough to really care), then I don't ignore it, I try to get the law changed through the proper channels.

Mandatory minimum sentences have the effect of putting low level drug users and dealers in jail for long periods of time even when they may have been only peripherally involved. These sentencing schemes have also increased our prison budgets and mandated that we keep building more and more jails every year to house our "criminals."

Mandatory minimum sentences have the effect of putting people who knowingly and willfully broke the law in jail for long periods of time. No one has to be a drug user or dealer of any level. Mandatory minimum sentences also attempt to prevent judges from legislating from the bench. If some judge feels that it should be okay to smoke pot, it is not his place to let the person off with probation, or whatever. The people have elected legislators who have drafted laws for them. The laws should then be enforced until the people elect legislators to change them.

If, historically, harsher penalties had ANY effect on levels of drug use, your argument might hold water, but as it is, your unthinking, knee-jerk approach will only serve to further bankrupt this country and continue to fuel the war between police and the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

If the only purpose of detention was to prevent future crime, your argument might hold water. You ignore that prison is a punishment for breaking the law as well. I think we should punish those who do not respect the rule of law.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
.

1. Which punishments are too light? Punishments, especially for drug offenders, are by no means light. THis is an example I picked at random, it's South carolina's penal code:

[size =1]A) A person possessing or attempting to possess less than one gram of ice, crank, or crack cocaine, as defined in Section 44-53-110, or less than ten grains of cocaine, as defined in Section 44-53-210(b)(4), is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction for a first offense, must be imprisoned not more than five years and fined not less than five thousand dollars.[/SIZE=1]

5 years in jail for having trying to score some coke for personal consumption? That's light? Maybe in Saudi Arabia it's light, not in any other Western country.

2. Mandatory minimums have been a complete disaster. In theory, what you said is correct, but in practice, it has not worked...at all.

Chief Justice Rehnquist on mandatory minimums:

"Mandatory minimums are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences, There is a respectable body of opinion which believes that these mandatory minimums impose unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders-- particularly for 'mules' who played only a minor role in a drug distribution scheme. Be that as it may, the mandatory minimums have also led to an inordinate increase in the federal prison population and will require huge expenditures to build new prison space..."

"Mandatory minimums...are frequently the result of floor amendments to demonstrate emphatically that legislators what to 'get tough on crime.' Just as frequently they do not involve any careful consideration of the effect they might have on the sentencing guidelines as a whole..."

Mandatory minimums have the stated goal of ensuring that similar offenders receive similar sentences, but in practice, perverse, unequal consequences often result." Mandatory minimums tend to fall hardest on people who are not habitual criminals (who are already covered by repeat offender laws). For example, in 1989, Delaware enacted a three-year mandatory minimum, with no parole, for possession of 5 to 15 grams of an illegal substance. Seventy-two percent of the persons convicted under the new law had never before been imprisoned for any crime -Kopel, David B. " Prison Blues: How America's Foolish Sentencing Policies Endanger Public Safety," Policy Analysis: No. 208; Cato Institute, (May 17,1994).

The Cato Institute, C.J. Rehnquist...not exactly bleeding heart liberals.

3. If it is all about respect for rule of law, then why not 3 year mandatory minimums for tax evasion? Insider trading? Speeding? Parking in a handicapped zone? Why or Why not?

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by SamFisher
1. Which punishments are too light? Punishments, especially for drug offenders, are by no means light.

DUI, Marijuana possession, tax evasion, insider trading, speeding, running a red light, and resisting arrest to name a few.

[quote][b] ... must be imprisoned not more than five years and fined not less than five thousand dollars.

"Imprisoned not more than five years" means short or non-existant prison terms are an option as well, yes? I don't think a $5,000 fine is going to put the fear of God in your average cokehead (see GWB).

2. Mandatory minimums have been a complete disaster. In theory, what you said is correct, but in practice, it has not worked...at all.

The problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that first time felons end up going to prison? :confused: What is wrong with that. I am not to concerned about the cost of housing prisoners. We should just privatise the prison industry and have the prisons pay for themselves.

3. If it is all about respect for rule of law, then why not 3 year mandatory minimums for tax evasion? Insider trading? Speeding? Parking in a handicapped zone? Why or Why not?

I would have no problem with that. Like I said, no one is forcing anybody to break the law.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker





. [/B]

That 5 years was just a random example. But if you think five years for a gram of coke is "light" you're crazy. You have the same in canada, and its up to a year. Please, how much social bad does some dude who gets high on coke do? Anymore than a dude who drinks 15 beers? 5 years in prison more? Right....:rolleyes:

The problems with mandatory minimums go well, well beyond what I quoted above. Does it not bother you that it is the consensus opinion within the legal community, cutting across political spectrums, that they are at both a disastrously inefficient way of allocating resources as well as brutally unjust?

BTW, how is a prison going to pay for itself? Cheap labor? Indeed, and put non-criminal workers who are displaced out of work? Yeah, that's real just.

Simplified thinking like yours without regard for the consequences is what makes such things possible in the first place.

BTW, you can claim that you support mandatory minimums for speeding and illegal parking, but you and I both know that you are talking out your ass and if you or anybody you know was taken to jail for speeding for a mandatory 3 year sentence, you would not stoically say "well, rule of law! off to the pokey for me!". That's just plain silly.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
How does that belie logic and reason? I happen to think that most of the punishments in our criminal justice system are too light. We are far too concerned about the rights of criminals. I don't have to worry about what the penalties prescribed for breaking laws are, because I can choose not to break the law. I know it is a cliche, but if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. No one is making anyone smoke pot, snort coke, shoot up, etc.


It belies logic because the logical response would be "I do not believe that there should be any drug laws and if there are drug laws, they should be as unobtrusive as possible." You are saying that even though you believe (like most Americans) that the drug war is not working, we should make a bad situation even worse by sending MORE people to jail for EVEN LONGER periods of time.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

Seperate from my feelings on how our criminal justice system should work, I also have views on what the laws of our country should be. There are many laws that I don't think are necessary. I also unerstand that it is not up to me to chose which laws to follow. If I break the law, I am accepting the consequences. If I don't believe in a law (and feel strongly enough to really care), then I don't ignore it, I try to get the law changed through the proper channels.


I AM trying to get the law changed through the proper channels, but it won't stop happening until we actually STOP INCREASING penalties for drug use and start moving in a sane, rational way. I too choose to follow the law, though not because of the consequences from the law. I have made my choice because of education and exposure to people who have had run-ins with drugs. I have seen this from just about every angle you can imagine and have found that prohibition causes much more harm than it has ever cured. Drugs are illegal because of racism, intolerance, and perversions of the truth and nobody deserves to be in jail because of them.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

Mandatory minimum sentences have the effect of putting people who knowingly and willfully broke the law in jail for long periods of time. No one has to be a drug user or dealer of any level. Mandatory minimum sentences also attempt to prevent judges from legislating from the bench. If some judge feels that it should be okay to smoke pot, it is not his place to let the person off with probation, or whatever. The people have elected legislators who have drafted laws for them. The laws should then be enforced until the people elect legislators to change them.


Like the friend of mine who was in a car being driven by a dealer when he went to make a pickup. She had no idea what he was doing and all of a sudden, she is in jail for 5 years and on probation for 10. She lost a husband and custody of her child to a mandatory minimum. Those are the type of people who mandatory minimums affect. High level dealers ALWAYS get the maximum sentance, but we need to give leeway to JUDGES to make informed, rational decisions about who to throw the book at and who deserves a little leniency. With mandatory minimums, the prosecutor has all the control and the only ones who get out of jail time are the rich white folks.

Get your head out of the sand, my friend.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

If the only purpose of detention was to prevent future crime, your argument might hold water. You ignore that prison is a punishment for breaking the law as well. I think we should punish those who do not respect the rule of law.

My friend would have been plenty punished by probation alone or even a short jail sentance. She didn't have a criminal record and has not tested positive once in eight years on probation. She doesn't even drink as per the terms of her probation because she believes in the law as you do.

I guess that you think that the morons in Congress and the prosecutors know what is right to do in the interest of justice over judges.

:rolleyes:

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
"Imprisoned not more than five years" means short or non-existant prison terms are an option as well, yes? I don't think a $5,000 fine is going to put the fear of God in your average cokehead (see GWB).


Yes, but "mandatory minimum" laws take that choice away from the judge. They impose artificial minimums that handcuff judges who become unable to set sentences based on culpability. In addition, when you are rich and can hire a big name lawyer, mandatory minimums rarely happen as the lawyer pleads down to a charge that carries a low penalty. Poor people, mostly black and brown, are regularly tossed away for decades because they get a public defender.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

The problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that first time felons end up going to prison? :confused: What is wrong with that. I am not to concerned about the cost of housing prisoners. We should just privatise the prison industry and have the prisons pay for themselves.


The problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that first time felons who may not even have been involved in the crime may be caught up in the sweep and imprisoned when they played a minor, if any, role.

Many of the prison systems in this country are already privatized, run for profit, and STILL suck up billions upon billions of public dollars every year, despite turning a tidy profit. More mandatory minimums also means even MORE than the 2 million people we already have in jail will be imprisoned. It sure is nice of the US and state governments to imprison millions and turn those people over to for-profit industries to manage. It sure is a growth industry over the past three decades.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
"
I would have no problem with that. Like I said, no one is forcing anybody to break the law.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by SamFisher
BTW, you can claim that you support mandatory minimums for speeding and illegal parking, but you and I both know that you are talking out your ass and if you or anybody you know was taken to jail for speeding for a mandatory 3 year sentence, you would not stoically say "well, rule of law! off to the pokey for me!". That's just plain silly.

Everything above this, we just disagree on. On this point you are calling me a liar. I do support having whatever punishment they want for speeding or parking violations. All you have to do to avoid them is not break the law. If the punishment for speeding was death, would you still speed, and then bitch about it when you got caught and were sentenced to death. I don't know about you, but I would just drive under the speed limit. That is the point. I wouldn't need to say "off to the pokey for me" because I have the ability to choose to follow the law. The same ability that people who use drugs have now. If you obey the law, you don't need to worry about what the punishment for breaking the law is. Think of it this way, drinking a bottle of drain cleaner will kill you. Do we demand that all drain cleaner must be made safe for human consumption, or do we simply chose not to drink drain cleaner. Be smart and avoid the consequences altogether instead of complaining that they are too harsh.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by andymoon
Like the friend of mine who was in a car being driven by a dealer when he went to make a pickup. She had no idea what he was doing and all of a sudden, she is in jail for 5 years and on probation for 10. She lost a husband and custody of her child to a mandatory minimum. Those are the type of people who mandatory minimums affect. High level dealers ALWAYS get the maximum sentance, but we need to give leeway to JUDGES to make informed, rational decisions about who to throw the book at and who deserves a little leniency. With mandatory minimums, the prosecutor has all the control and the only ones who get out of jail time are the rich white folks.

This is not a problem with sentencing, it is a problem with conviction. It is not against the law to ride in a car. Your friend sounds like she suffered from having a crappy lawyer. She also didn't have the good sense not to associate with drug dealers. However, I am certain this is the exception and not the rule. Most people are going to be busted for possesion, not for unknowingly riding around with a drug dealer to/from a pick up.

Yes, but "mandatory minimum" laws take that choice away from the judge.

The quote you responded to had nothing to do with mandatory minimum laws. I was pointing out that under the penal code posted by SamFisher, it was possible to receive no jail time and only a 5k fine. He quoted that statute as being to harsh, and I was claiming that he misread it and it was in fact to light.

As for rich people avoiding punishment, what else is new. I take it you have not heard of OJ Simpson. That has nothing to do with the criminal justice system and everything to do with the sharpest lawyers working defense because that is where the money is in criminal law.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Everything above this, we just disagree on. On this point you are calling me a liar. I do support having whatever punishment they want for speeding or parking violations. All you have to do to avoid them is not break the law. If the punishment for speeding was death, would you still speed, and then bitch about it when you got caught and were sentenced to death. I don't know about you, but I would just drive under the speed limit. That is the point. I wouldn't need to say "off to the pokey for me" because I have the ability to choose to follow the law. The same ability that people who use drugs have now. If you obey the law, you don't need to worry about what the punishment for breaking the law is. Think of it this way, drinking a bottle of drain cleaner will kill you. Do we demand that all drain cleaner must be made safe for human consumption, or do we simply chose not to drink drain cleaner. Be smart and avoid the consequences altogether instead of complaining that they are too harsh.

OK, so what about the death penalty for speeders. Too harsh or is rule of law worth it?

[StupidMoniker]

I don't believe in the death penalty in general, but the point is that I don't care what the penalty is for any crime, because no one has to suffer the penalty, they chose to do so by commiting the crime.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I don't believe in the death penalty in general, but the point is that I don't care what the penalty is for any crime, because no one has to suffer the penalty, they chose to do so by commiting the crime.

But putting aside your moral objections, you would be fine with any degree of punishment for the sake of rule of law as long as individual choice was available?

Well, if you do then I guess you do and there's nothing I can say about it, other than it sounds too Vulcan to be true.

But anyway, the anglo american justice system is not based on such principles (e.g, death penalty or life imprisonment for speeders would be held unconstitutional, in all likelihood as cruel and unusual punishment) It's based on the principle that the punishment is commensurate with the offense. However, mandatory minimums turn this principle on its ear, while having many, many, many negative consequences in addition thereto.

[StupidMoniker]

I would be fin with that, I guess that makes me:

http://web.tiscali.it/ffantasy/Parkinson/Draconian.jpg

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I would be fin with that, I guess that makes me:

http://web.tiscali.it/ffantasy/Parkinson/Draconian.jpg

A red x?

or this

http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/images/spock.jpg

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
This is not a problem with sentencing, it is a problem with conviction. It is not against the law to ride in a car. Your friend sounds like she suffered from having a crappy lawyer.


It is quite obvious to me that you know somewhere between little and nothing about the way our criminal justice system actually works. With a mandatory minimum in place, there is no reason for the prosecutor to even consider a plea bargain unless you have a top notch lawyer who could take the case to trial and win it. She was convicted despite her lack of criminal record by a jury that was alot like you (do the crime, do the time) even though she had a dozen witnesses that testified that she had never been involved in drugs. As usual, the police testified that she was a part of the crime and, predictably, they convicted her on the word of a police officer who was trying to bump his arrest numbers. It happens every single day in our drug war.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

She also didn't have the good sense not to associate with drug dealers. However, I am certain this is the exception and not the rule. Most people are going to be busted for possesion, not for unknowingly riding around with a drug dealer to/from a pick up.


Life must be so nice in your world. Do ALL drug dealers have "drug dealer" tatooed on their foreheads where you come from?

Of course these are going to be the exception rather than the rule, which is the main reason to stay away from mandatory minimums. The judge will not deviate from the standard sentences in the VAST majority of cases, the mandatory minimum takes away the judge's discretion in ALL cases, even the ones where justice would be better served with a lower sentance.

Again, I challenge you to support your seeming contention that prosecutors and Congressmen know better than the judge on the case what is in the interest of justice in that case.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

The quote you responded to had nothing to do with mandatory minimum laws. I was pointing out that under the penal code posted by SamFisher, it was possible to receive no jail time and only a 5k fine. He quoted that statute as being to harsh, and I was claiming that he misread it and it was in fact to light.


Yes, and I was pointing out that under mandatory minimum schemes (which mostly start at 5 years and build from there), the judge does NOT have the ability to give a lighter sentence for someone who is peripherally involved.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker

As for rich people avoiding punishment, what else is new. I take it you have not heard of OJ Simpson. That has nothing to do with the criminal justice system and everything to do with the sharpest lawyers working defense because that is where the money is in criminal law.

By this statement, I take it that you are perfectly OK with creating laws that we KNOW for a fact will only really affect poor people. At least with murder (your example), there is a major trial where evidence must be presented and the defendant actually has a chance of being convicted. With drug laws and mandatory minimums, the power lies in the hands of the prosecutor because when it all boils down, the case will come down to he said (cop) she said (my friend) and the jury will believe the cop in nearly every case. Drug trials are a kangaroo court with all presumption of innocence thrown out because in order to police a victimless crime, the cops have to lie on the stand (the practice is so common that the police call it testi-lying). Unless you have OJ money, you will never get off if a cop accuses you of a drug crime, as we saw in the Tulia case. Tom Coleman won over 40 convictions on his word alone with no notes, tape recordings, videotapes, or drugs as evidence. That is how our drug laws work.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by SamFisher
A red x?

or this

http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/images/spock.jpg

It was actually supposed to be a draconian, but the picture wouldn't link. :)

[Ankich]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
I don't believe in the death penalty in general, but the point is that I don't care what the penalty is for any crime, because no one has to suffer the penalty, they chose to do so by commiting the crime.
So the government would be perfectly justified in illegalizing everything that isn't absolutely vital to human life and imposing 20-year prison sentences for any deviationism?

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by andymoon
With a mandatory minimum in place, there is no reason for the prosecutor to even consider a plea bargain unless you have a top notch lawyer who could take the case to trial and win it.

Sounds like you get convicted of crimes you didn't commit if you have a crappy lawyer, which is exactly what I said and you quoted.

Life must be so nice in your world. Do ALL drug dealers have "drug dealer" tatooed on their foreheads where you come from?

Okay, either your friend was driving around with a stranger (not too smart), someone she knew was a drug dealer (not too smart), or someone who she knew but who was secretly a drug dealer (bad luck). I have a pretty good idea what my friends do to make money, and if one of them was selling drugs, I wouldn't ride around in their car.

Of course these are going to be the exception rather than the rule, which is the main reason to stay away from mandatory minimums. The judge will not deviate from the standard sentences in the VAST majority of cases, the mandatory minimum takes away the judge's discretion in ALL cases, even the ones where justice would be better served with a lower sentance.

Again, I challenge you to support your seeming contention that prosecutors and Congressmen know better than the judge on the case what is in the interest of justice in that case.

All that is fine and dandy until you get an activist judge that tries to legislate from the bench. Now you have someone that decides he does not agree that people should serve time for possession and lets people off with a fine. Unfortunately, neither way works perfectly, but justice will be served more often if there is a standard than if you leave the discision to individuals.

By this statement, I take it that you are perfectly OK with creating laws that we KNOW for a fact will only really affect poor people. At least with murder (your example), there is a major trial where evidence must be presented and the defendant actually has a chance of being convicted. With drug laws and mandatory minimums, the power lies in the hands of the prosecutor because when it all boils down, the case will come down to he said (cop) she said (my friend) and the jury will believe the cop in nearly every case. Drug trials are a kangaroo court with all presumption of innocence thrown out because in order to police a victimless crime, the cops have to lie on the stand (the practice is so common that the police call it testi-lying). Unless you have OJ money, you will never get off if a cop accuses you of a drug crime, as we saw in the Tulia case. Tom Coleman won over 40 convictions on his word alone with no notes, tape recordings, videotapes, or drugs as evidence. That is how our drug laws work.

Make up your mind. Do the laws only affect poor people, or do they affect everyone that does not have OJ money. BTW, weren't the Tulia cases overturned?

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by Ankich
So the government would be perfectly justified in illegalizing everything that isn't absolutely vital to human life and imposing 20-year prison sentences for any deviationism?

Where do these paranoid delusions come from? :rolleyes: "The government" in America (at least the legislative branch, you know the ones that make laws) are elected by the people. I don't think it is very likely that America is going to elect legislators that make everything not essential to human life illegal. If the people did choose to elect such legislators, then they would be justified in doing so (as long as all the laws were constitutional, other wise they would be overturned by the SCOTUS), as that would be the will of the people.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Sounds like you get convicted of crimes you didn't commit if you have a crappy lawyer, which is exactly what I said and you quoted.

But now we are writing into the law the minimum sentance for having a crappy lawyer.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Okay, either your friend was driving around with a stranger (not too smart), someone she knew was a drug dealer (not too smart), or someone who she knew but who was secretly a drug dealer (bad luck). I have a pretty good idea what my friends do to make money, and if one of them was selling drugs, I wouldn't ride around in their car.


If you simply will not let my example go without details...

She was invited out by a friend she hadn't seen in a couple of years. He and his friends were planning on having an MDMA party that night and he happened to be the one conscripted to make the pick up. The pick up was on the same side of town that my friend lived on so he decided to kill two birds with one stone and they both got busted.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
All that is fine and dandy until you get an activist judge that tries to legislate from the bench. Now you have someone that decides he does not agree that people should serve time for possession and lets people off with a fine. Unfortunately, neither way works perfectly, but justice will be served more often if there is a standard than if you leave the discision to individuals.


I challenge you to find a single judge who simply lets people off with any regularity. Justice will be served if you give the power to judges and let them decide on a case by case basis. That is the entire purpose of a judge and one of the foundations of our legal system. The situation you described is a fantasy dreamed up by politicians to get people like you to support mandatory minimums.

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
Make up your mind. Do the laws only affect poor people, or do they affect everyone that does not have OJ money. BTW, weren't the Tulia cases overturned?

For the most part, the drug laws only affect poor people, yes. It is even more pronounced with poor minorities. Some lower middle class people get dragged into the criminal justice system (as my friend did) as well, but anyone with the ability to scrape up $10,000 or so can pretty much get a pass on nearly any drug crime unless he actually IS a major drug lord. It is possible to prove your innocence in a drug case, it is just really, REALLY expensive.

Yes, the Tulia case was overturned, but 45 people spent YEARS in jail on the word of a rogue cop trying to make a name for himself and milking the taxpayers of every dollar he could. The people in Tulia were blessed to have a lawyer donate two years of his life to getting them out of jail, something the other half million drug prisoners don't have.