Overstuffed prisons leave convicted armed robbers at large

[mvpel]

And here's an example of one of the packing peanuts that constitutes that overstuffing:

Washington Post

THE SUPREME Court this week declined to review the case of Weldon Angelos, leaving in place his obscene sentence of 55 years in prison for small-time marijuana and gun charges. The high court's move is no surprise; the justices have tended to uphold draconian sentences against constitutional challenge. But it confronts President Bush with a question he will have to address: Is there any sentence so unfair that he would exert himself to correct it?

So far, Mr. Bush hasn't found one. He has commuted only two sentences, both of inmates who were about to be released anyway. Mr. Angelos, by contrast, is a young man and a first-time offender who is now likely to spend the rest of his life in prison. His crime? He sold $350 in marijuana to a government informant three times -- and carried, but did not display, a gun on two of those occasions. Police found other guns and pot at his house. The U.S. district judge who sentenced him in Utah, Paul G. Cassell, declared the mandatory sentence in this case "unjust, cruel, and even irrational." He noted that it is "far in excess of the sentence imposed for such serious crimes as aircraft hijacking, second degree murder, espionage, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and rape." And in an extraordinary act, he explicitly called on Mr. Bush to use his clemency powers to offer what he as a judge could not: justice. Judge Cassell recommended that Mr. Bush commute the sentence to 18 years, which he described as "the average sentence recommended by the jury that heard this case."

 

[Redworm]

A grand of marijuana and the instinct of self-presercation puts a man in jail for over half a century.

Rapists and murderers are out on parole.





oh yeah, this war on drugs is really good for society. thanks, uncle sam!

 

[TonyM1]

I agree with the premise of the argument, however I also think that the felon either knew of the consequences of his actions if caught and decided it was worth the risk, or he did not know (more likely) which imo makes him stupid, and stupid criminals with guns tend to do stupid things with those guns if left unchecked. I imagine the sentence is so severe due to the carrying of a firearm while commiting a felony, and I imagine the reasoning is that the felon has therefore demonstrated the intent to shoot someone in the (likely) event that something goes wrong.
Coincidentally enough I was recently watching a Discovery channel show about marshalls capturing fugitives in Vegas, they responded to a call where 4 street patrol officers were being fired upon and were pinned down in a stair well. The officers were responding to a complaint of a marijuana odor, and were met with automatic gunfire. The shooter told the authorities that he knows they have him outgunned, but they will have to come in and get him. The swat team made swiss cheese out of the building and took the guy out. The point is that this was just a routine response to the odor of marijuana called in by a citizen, it didn't seem like that big of a deal at the onset. People that do not want to go to prison and are armed are likely to at least think about fighting it out and some would rather die than go to prison. If the felon in this case were to get his sentence commuted to 18 years, I believe he would likely return to criminal life upon his release as he would have a difficult time reintegrating into a law abiding society, and if he was faced with being caught a second time he would likely do what it takes to avoid going back to prison.

 

[Redworm]

Stupid civilians with guns also tend to do stupid things with guns if left unchecked. Being a criminal does not make one stupid or uneducated, nor does selling drugs.

 

[TonyM1]

So you believe that commiting a felony is a smart thing to do? I disagree, risking 55 years in prison for the chump change made selling pot is an incredibly idiotic act, the risk/reward ratio is highly imbalanced to the negative side, imo of course.

 

[ATW525]

Mr. Weldon was offered a 15 year sentence in a plea bargain and rejected it. He rolled the dice and he lost.

 

[Crosshair]

ATW525

Mr. Weldon was offered a 15 year sentence in a plea bargain and rejected it. He rolled the dice and he lost.

So you are saying that it is OK to jail someone who sold a plant that grows wild for 55 years? Hell, 15 years is too long. Hell, it shouldn't even be illegal. The gun thing is a different issue entirely, MABEE charge him with carrying without a permit.

The fact is that pot is less dangerous than tobacco. Many doctors want to perscribe it to chronically ill patients. I smoked pot for years in high school, then quit and went onto better (non drug) things. The worst thing that ever happened to me was that I slept in class and ate alot of junk food. When was the last time you heard, "Man high on pot goes on rampage, 3 dead." Have you EVER heard of a violent stoner? I sure have not. Heck alot of people around you in public probably smoked pot and many probably still do.

The issue is not of the plea bargin. It is the issue of people who are charged with rape, murder, etc getting lighter sentences than this person and criminalising something that should not be illegal in the first place.

 

[TonyM1]

I would say it is ok to enforce the law as it was written, if we do not agree with any law we should be pro-active in making sure the law is not passed to begin with. Bellyaching about it now is akin to bitching about the price of something after you have already bought it.

If this supposedly harmless individual had shot and killed the arresting officer we would not be discussing how harmless pot is or is not.

Yes, armed robbers, murderers and rapists should be given more severe sentences than Mr. Weldon. The only way to ensure that is to contact your lawmakers and voice your opinion and seek out others that feel the same way and make it a priority in your life to bring the issue to light publicly. Most of us do not have the conviction to do this, there are more important things for us to do, which in turn demonstrates our real level of concern with this issue of fitting the crime to the punishment, which is obviously quite low.

 

[tyme]

Bellyaching about it now is akin to bitching about the price of something after you have already bought it.

I didn't buy anything of the sort, even if you equate voting with buying. Mandatory minimum sentencing was in effect well before I turned 18.

If he didn't display a gun, how do they know he was carrying one?

 

[TonyM1]

Well since you did not have the opportunity to pre-empt those guidelines, what have you done since turning 18 to have them repealed?

The point I am attempting to make is that if this were so important to us as we may think while discussing the subject here, the lack of national attention demonstrates that it is not a very high priority to us.

I would imagine they searched him?

 

[Redworm]

The point I am attempting to make is that if this were so important to us as we may think while discussing the subject here, the lack of national attention demonstrates that it is not a very high priority to us.

because uncle sam and the media have not been lying to the american people about drugs for over half a century like they've been lying to the american people about guns for over half a century


I guess gun rights are not as important since there's a lack of national attention. I guess if they were meant to be legal they would be, just like drugs. Awesome logic.

 

[TonyM1]

Gun control is often in the national spotlight and the last time I looked guns are legal.

How often do you hear about gun control issues in the media and how often do you hear about mandatory sentencing guidelines?

How does criticizing my logic relate to the discussion of guns?

How does defending an armed pot dealer help the law abiding gun owners that want to keep their 2A rights?

Here's an idea; don't commit a felony while in possesion of a gun and you have less to worry about, or even better, don't commit a felony.

 

[Redworm]

Are all guns legal? No. Just like not all drugs are legal. Drugs are in the national spotlight as often as guns and they're both getting the same treatment. I'm sure we can find just as many references to illegal drugs in the media and from the government as ones to illegal guns and how evil and bad they are. Just like drugs.

Defending an armed pot dealer helps are 2A rights because the drug war is the most powerful tool the antis have against us.

Oh here's an idea! When Congress declares your M1 an assault weapon and refusal to turn it in becomes a felony then you go ahead and turn it in! Wouldn't want to be a felon, would you? :barf:

 

[TonyM1]

You sure like to ridicule others positions while stating your own don't you?

Here's an idea; the discussion is supposed to be about guns, not drugs. People that use guns in the commision of a crime give guns a bad name and give the anti-gunners more ammo.

The issue of mandatory sentencing of 55 years in relation to the possesion of a gun is what the discussion should be about.

The M1 after Tony does not have anything to do with guns, you know what they say about assumptions right?

 

[Redworm]

The issue of mandatory sentencing of 55 years in relation to the possesion of a gun is what the discussion should be about.

o rly now?

So the mandatory sentencing has nothing to do with the drug charges? The discussion as I see it is about unfair laws in general, both against guns and drugs.

excuse me for the assumption but I would imagine it's safe to assume you own some kind of firearm, no? what if possession of those firearms becomes a crime - like it is in washington DC and chicago - would you simply fork them over because you don't want o be a felon?

"oh but drugs are not protected by the constitution!" isn't that the typical reply?

whatever. if those guns are not being used in the defense of life and liberty then than second amendment is utterly useless and undeserved. give a damn or two about everyone's freedom, not just your freedom to do what you want to do.

 

[TonyM1]

redworm

The OP put into bold print the reference to the gun, this is TFL right? Topics are supposed to be gun related? Or am I in the wrong room?

Dealing illegal drugs is, well, illegal, and the possesion of guns is not in the state in which I live. Let's try to stick with what is and not what if. To humor you; if the state of Florida made a change I would have a decision to make, and I cannot honestly state what the outcome would be until the situation arose, however if I did decide to break the law and was subsequently arrested it would be nobody's fault but my own. I would have made a decision knowing full well the consequences of my actions.

I don't understand your last statement, are you asking that I give a damn that a drug dealer is going to jail for 55 years?

 

[mvpel]

Simple possession of two of my handguns and one of the stock magazines for them is a mandatory one year in prison if I set foot in Massachusetts by driving through a mall parking lot in Nashua, New Hampshire.

Possessing a Browning HiPower, capable of accepting a 13-round magazine, without a Class A license to carry, is, well, illegal, in Massachusetts.

I'm asking you to give a damn that a nonviolent drug dealer and thief is in jail for 55 years while an 11-times-convicted violent criminal armed robber was walking the streets free to go to a strip joint and try to run down a New York police officer and wind up ventilated and ART, because the DA's had to keep their numbers up and the prisons are so gosh-darn overcrowded.

I would say it is ok to enforce the law as it was written, if we do not agree with any law we should be pro-active in making sure the law is not passed to begin with. Bellyaching about it now is akin to bitching about the price of something after you have already bought it.

Everything the Nazis did was legal.

The law does not necessarily have anything to do with what's right, just, or moral.

 

[badbob]

The sentence doesn't seem to fit the crime and the appeals process doesn't work. Laws are written by politicians, to get votes or to satisfy lobbyists.

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
- OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES Jr. (1841-1935)
Supreme Court Justice

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4798395

When U.S. District Court Judge Paul Cassell sentenced Utah record producer and pot dealer Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison, he was following the law.

When he joined with a who's who of the American bar to argue that that very sentence was, in Cassell's words, "unjust, cruel and even irrational," he was seeking justice.

The fact that justice and the law do not match is not Cassell's fault. It is the fault of Congress.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case brought by Angelos that his sentence, though mandated by law, is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

If an effective life sentence for such a common crime, invoked merely because Angelos was found to be carrying a gun when he was caught selling marijuana to undercover police officers, is not cruel and unusual, it's hard to imagine what would be

.

badbob

 

[TonyM1]

So we should pick and choose which laws we want to obey, since we are going to compare our judicial system to the Nazi's? Where would that leave us, we would be a lawless society no? Our country is far from perfect, but it is even further from fascism or despotism. You are correct in that the law is often not right, just or moral, but it is still the law and the only effective way to change it is through legal means unless it has become so draconian that a civil uprising is the only answer as is the case in so many other countries. I don't think it's to that point in the U.S. It may well someday come to that, but in the mean time those that feel strongly enough about an issue they believe to be unjust should get off their duff's and do something about it, otherwise the lack of action constitutes a willingness to accept things the way they are. The ideology of making the law fair and just is certainly admirable, but I'm a realist and understand that a utopia will never come to fruition, so I'll choose my battles carefully and begrudingly accept the shortcomings of our country for lack of any better options at the current time.

It's also illegal to have possesion of a firearm within 1000' of a school, even if it's in your glovebox as you're driving past a school (unless you hold a cwp), so what? Educate yourself on the laws of the land and make your choice.

How do we know that Mr. Weldon is non-violent? Just because he was not caught in a violent act does not automatically make him harmless. Do you suppose if someone ripped him off he would remain harmless? Setting Mr. Weldon free would not have prevented the NY police officer from his interaction with the armed robber. The mandatory sentencing guidelines should have equally applied to this 11 time convicted felon, so apparently Mr. Weldon has nothing to worry about as he should be set free soon due to the overcrowding also, right?

I did start out in my first reply to this thread that I agreed with the premise, but rather than lower Mr. Weldon's sentence, I would rather raise them for more dangerous criminals. The death penalty as mandatory for anyone found guilty of 1st degree murder would be fine with me.

 

[Redworm]

but in the mean time those that feel strongly enough about an issue they believe to be unjust should get off their duff's and do something about it,

Many of us do and trying to open the minds of anti-drug folks is as important to us as trying to open the minds of anti-gun folk.

How do we know that Mr. Weldon is non-violent? Just because he was not caught in a violent act does not automatically make him harmless.

Innocent until proven guilty. We have no reason to believe that he was violent any more than anyone here has reason to believe you or I are violent.

so apparently Mr. Weldon has nothing to worry about as he should be set free soon due to the overcrowding also, right?

Wrong. The very reason so many violent offenders are on the streets so soon is because the nonviolent drug offendors (non-violent in the sense that they are in prison for victimless crimes) don't get the same leniency as rapists, burglars and sometimes even killers. No, he has plenty to worry about because for some idiotic reason people think it's worse to sell a ****ing plant than it is to beat someone to within an inch of their life and thus drug charges are punished more severely than other crimes.

I did start out in my first reply to this thread that I agreed with the premise, but rather than lower Mr. Weldon's sentence, I would rather raise them for more dangerous criminals. The death penalty as mandatory for anyone found guilty of 1st degree murder would be fine with me.

Right, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. You seem to think it's ok for a guy that has not been proven to have harmed a single living soul is put behind bars.

oh and as for the death penalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye because our justice system is so perfect and no innocent man ever ends up on death row. I'm sure you'd say the same if a member of your family was falsely convicted of murder 1







right?