Newsbrief: Massachusetts Judge Rips "Drug Free Zone" Mandatory Minimums http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/363/mulligan.shtml One of Massachusetts' leading jurists spoke out Monday against the state's "drug free zone" law, saying that the two-year mandatory minimum sentence for drug possession near a school does not work, is discriminatory, and corrodes faith in the fairness of the criminal justice system. Judge Robert A. Mulligan, the chief justice for administration and management in the state's courts, told the Associated Press the "drug free zone" law overwhelmingly affected ethnic minorities. "I'm not saying that minorities are being targeted, and I'm not saying that the arresting officers are unfair, but I'm saying that the policy itself is not wise," Mulligan said. "The policy has a discriminatory effect." Because there are few areas in any Massachusetts city that are not within 1,000 feet of a school, the law has a disproportionate impact on urban populations, he said. In Boston, for example, "unless you're on the tarmac of Logan Airport, you're within 1,000 feet of a school." The "drug free zone" law was passed with bipartisan support in 1989 at the behest of then Gov. Michael Dukakis (D). A state sentencing commission, of which Mulligan is a former long-time chair, has proposed eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, but so far no effort to enact the proposal has moved forward in the legislature. The "drug free zone" law goes far beyond its stated purpose of protecting children, said Mulligan. "The purpose behind school zones is to keep drugs away from schools and that's a legitimate purpose," the jurist explained. "But school doesn't have to be in session, it can be at night, it can be during the summer. So it doesn't really achieve its goals." Between the disproportionate impact on minorities and the harsh sentencing scheme embodied in the "drug free zone" laws, said Mulligan, the net effect is that "it really increases skepticism in the fairness of the system." Mulligan's view won support from Leslie Walker, executive director of the Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, which represents prisoners. Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders are a prime factor in rising prison costs, she said. "It places nonviolent offenders in prison, causing further overcrowding," Walker said. "Those prisoners are ineligible for parole. They complete their entire sentence behind the wall, then they're released to the street without any support or supervision, causing a public safety crisis." But the "drug free zone" laws still have their defenders. Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Gerry Stewart said the law was written broadly for a reason. "The law has a wide scope in its intent to protect children of all ages," he said.
Newsbrief: Judge Sentences mar1juana Seller to 55 Years, Then Attacks Mandatory Minimums http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/363/angelos.shtml A federal judge in Salt Lake City Tuesday sentenced budding rap music entrepreneur Weldon Angelos, 25, to 55 years in prison for minor mar1juana sales to a police informant while armed, then complained that federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws made him do it. Earlier that day, the same judge in the same courtroom sentenced a man who had beaten an elderly women to death with a log to 22 years in prison. Angelos would not have gotten such a stiff sentence if not for federal mandatory minimum laws. The mar1juana retailer carried a pistol in an ankle holster while conducting his business, and although he was not accused of brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone with it, he was charged with three counts of possession of a firearm while engaged in drug trafficking. The first count carries a mandatory minimum five-year sentence, while each additional count carries a 25-year mandatory minimum. "I have no choice," US District Court Judge Paul Cassell told Angelos, adding that he imposed the sentence "reluctantly." Angelos' attorneys should not only appeal his ruling, but should also appeal to President Bush for clemency, Cassell continued. Sending Angelos to prison until he is 70 is "unjust, cruel, and even irrational," Cassell added. It was a case that weighed on Cassell, who in a September hearing, asked the opposing legal teams in the case: "Is there a rational basis for giving Mr. Angelos more time than the hijacker, the murderer, the rapist?" Assistant US Attorney Robert Lund had no problem with the stiff sentence. Pot seller Angelos was "a purveyor of poison," Lund said, adding that the fact Angelos carried a gun meant he was "prepared to kill other human beings." Lund neglected to point out that Angelos had not killed other human beings or wounded them or threatened them. He also elided the fact that Angelos most probably carried a weapon not to kill other human beings but to protect himself while working in a profession where the law offers no protection. "He might as well have killed someone," Angelos' wife Zandrah said bitterly as she sat in the courtroom with their two boys, aged five and seven. "He should have done worse than he did if he was going to get 55 years." Judge Cassell should, one supposes, be given credit for speaking out against the insane cruelty of mandatory minimums in this particular case. But frankly, these judges who complain their hands are tied by mandatory minimums need to resist more effectively. Their "I was just following orders" judicial Nuremburg defense is beginning to wear thin.
