cannabisnews.com: Gluttons for Punishment





Gluttons for Punishment
Posted by CN Staff on January 14, 2005 at 12:09:55 PT
By Jacob Sullum
Source: Reason Magazine 
The Supreme Court's expansion of judicial sentencing discretion could provoke a dangerous congressional backlash. Last November, Weldon Angelos, a 24-year-old record company executive with no prior convictions, was sentenced to 55 years in federal prison for selling a pound and a half of marijuana to a government informant. The judge who imposed the sentence, Paul Cassell of the U.S. Court for the District of Utah, urged President Bush to commute it, calling it "unjust, cruel, and irrational."
The Supreme Court's recent decision restoring broad sentencing discretion to federal judges is expected to make this sort of situation, in which a judge agonizes over a draconian punishment he feels legally compelled to impose, less common. But the ruling, which made federal sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, does not help Angelos.That's because his sentence was determined not by the guidelines but by statute. It is therefore perfectly constitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Booker, which found that the guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury by lengthening sentences on the basis of facts determined by judges.The ruling does not affect penalties prescribed by Congress for offenses that are admitted or proven to a jury, no matter how absurdly disproportionate the sentences are. In fact, one possible outcome of the decision is that we will see more such mandatory sentences, as tougher-than-thou members of Congress who thought judges were abusing what little discretion they had under the guidelines panic at the prospect of penalties determined by judicial whims.The Angelos case suggests the dangers of that course. His 55-year sentence was dictated by a federal law that imposes extra punishment on people who commit felonies while carrying or using a gun: five years for the first offense and 25 years for each subsequent offense. Angelos, who completed three government-arranged marijuana sales, each involving about eight ounces, was convicted of having a pistol in an ankle holster during two of the sales; guns that police found in his home were the basis for a third conviction.Angelos never used or even brandished his pistol, which he carried for self-protection. Yet as Judge Cassell noted, his punishment "is far in excess of the sentence imposed for such serious crimes as aircraft hijacking, second degree murder, espionage, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and rape."If Angelos had been sentenced under the guidelines alone, the penalty range would have been roughly eight to 10 years. (Anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling in Booker, Cassell departed from the sentencing guidelines to give Angelos a one-day sentence for his other offenses.) If he had been convicted of the same offenses under Utah law, the prosecution estimated, Angelos would have ended up serving five to seven years.Sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums were supposed to reduce unjust variations in punishment, making it more likely that similar defendants who committed similar crimes would receive similar penalties. But as this case shows, they can also cause unjust variations in punishment by making big sentencing differences hinge on which prosecutors (state or federal) bring charges and which charges they choose to bring.Prosecutors initially told Angelos that if he pleaded guilty to marijuana distribution and one count of carrying a gun, they would recommend a sentence of 15 years. After he turned down that deal, they filed a new indictment with a total of 20 charges, including five gun offenses that by themselves exposed him to a mandatory minimum sentence of 105 years.Mandatory minimums thus replace judicial discretion with prosecutorial discretion, which isn't necessarily better and is often worse, since prosecutors tend to aim for the most severe punishment they can get, whereas judges are supposed to take a more balanced approach. This does not mean there is no cause for concern about unconstrained judicial discretion, but Congress should also be aware of the injustice that results from giving prosecutors too much power, especially since the vast majority of federal cases are resolved by plea agreements.The wisest approach at this point is to wait and see how the implications of Booker are worked out in the lower courts. While the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, trial judges are still required to consider them, and appeals courts will be reviewing their sentencing decisions for "reasonableness."Given the perils of excessively rigid sentencing rules, Congress should hesitate before creating new mandatory minimums. Instead it should revisit laws under which selling someone pot can trigger a more severe penalty than killing him.Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use (Tarcher/Putnam).Copyright 2005 by Creators Syndicate Inc.Source: Reason Magazine (US)Author: Jacob SullumPublished: January 14, 2005 Copyright: 2005 The Reason FoundationContact: letters reason.comWebsite: http://www.reason.com/ Related Articles:Fight Over Controlling Punishments Is Seenhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20122.shtmlLegal Experts Debate Court Decision's Effect http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20121.shtmlJudges Are Not Bound by Sentencing Ruleshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20118.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by ron on January 15, 2005 at 11:08:55 PT
Frame them with Shame
Fifty five years for selling pot is a sleazeball justice. Police, prosecution and the bench should be ashamed. So should ennabling politicians.Sukoi's link about Dan Siegel, the SF politician caught with a packet of cannabis, is revealing. Chip Johnson, from the Chronicle's ring of presstitutes, thinks Dan did a dopey thing trying to bring a few joints along on a business trip.But his real complaint is that Dan is a public figure, and has responsibilities. Therefore, in Chip's twisted mind, he should do some serious contrition now. Otherwise the voters will thrash him soundly in the next election.I'd give odds that if Dan continues to hold his head high, and insists the oppressers and persecutors and oily PR's are the ones whose heads should be hanging in shame, he'll win a resounding victory at the polls.Just below the thin veneer that masks this despicable pogrom is a deep sense of shame coming from perpetrators. That's why cops don't want to talk about cannabis with fellow citizens. Or, as one retiree told me, "I never busted anyone for pot. I threw it away lots of times, but I never busted anyone." He knew the shame of what they were doing.We need to start framing these torturers on a background of shame.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sukoi on January 14, 2005 at 15:32:50 PT
A few articles
I love reading Jacob Sullums' articles; he thinks so clearly! The government could learn a lot from him!These are unrelated but interesting:Pot-using politician did dopey thinghttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/14/BAG94APTG91.DTLBurglary suspect shot by residenthttp://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050114/NEWS/501140328/1033/NEWS01Medical marijuana case goes to courthttp://gp.us.publicus.com/article/20050114/VALLEYNEWS/101140010Proposed San Antonio Bill Would Prohibit People Arrested For Drug Offenses from Entering Certain Neighborhoodshttp://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr011405.cfmYikes! I'm from San Antonio!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 14, 2005 at 12:12:19 PT
Thank You Jacob Sullum
I really appreciate this article. Oh for common sense to return. It would be so nice to see.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment