Judges Look to New Congress for Changes in Mandatory Sentencing Laws

[High Plains]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/washington/09sentencing.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=login


WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 — Federal sentencing laws that require lengthy mandated prison terms for certain offenses are expected to come under fresh scrutiny as Democrats assume control of Congress.

Among those eagerly awaiting signs of change are federal judges, including many conservatives appointed by Republican presidents. They say the automatic sentences, determined by Congress, strip judges of individual discretion and result in ineffective, excessive penalties, often for low-level offenders.

Judges have long been critical of the automatic prison terms, referred to as mandatory minimum sentences, which were most recently enacted by Congress in 1986 in part to stem the drug trade. Now influential judges across the ideological spectrum say that the combination of Democratic leadership and growing Republican support for modest change may provide the best chance in years for a review of the system.

“With a changing of the guard, there should at least should be some discussion,” said William W. Wilkins, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan.

The House Judiciary Committee, under the new leadership of Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, is planning hearings on the laws, starting later this month or in early February. One of the first issues planned for review is the sentencing disparity between offenses involving powder and crack cocaine. The possession or trafficking of crack brings much harsher penalties than those for similar amounts of the powder form of the drug. Mr. Conyers, a longtime critic of mandatory minimum sentences, favors treating both drugs equally.

<snip> More at link...

[High Plains]

1. This is way overdue. And we better have retroactivity, too.

We have more than half a million people behind bars for drug offenses. That, my friends, is a crime against humanity.

We need to end drug prohibition, but in the meantime, securing some justice for its victims would be a good beginning.

[Massacure]

12. There is no such thing as a retroactive law.

Unless Bush pardons them, the people already screwed by the system are not going to get a break.

[High Plains]

2. Ho-hum, more than 2 million behind bars...nobody gives a shit.

[snooper2]

3. No, we have the wrong 2 million people behind bars...

Fuckers that rape/molest kids get 4 years probation while people with a ounce of coke get 20 years....

[High Plains]

6. No, we have way too many people behind bars.

The US is without a doubt one of the most punitive societies on the planet. We lead the world in total prisoners, we lead the world in prisoners per capita. We are part of a select group of barbaric countries that practices the death penalty.

We did to reserve imprisonment for people we fear, not those we're just mad at.

I'm not aware of too many child rapists getting probation in these days of hysteria over such offenses.

[54anickel]

4. But, but what will all of those privatized prison do for a steady revenue stream? n/t

[Rambis]

5. LSD sentences outrageous

Multiple people are serving years and years for the weight of paper or whatever vehicle the LSD was contained on. Suger cubes and blotter paper add years to a sentence because they can't extract the drug from the paper etc so they just weigh it and you serve.
A judge in NYC quit hearing drug cases because he wouldn't enforce the MM sentences so the defendants just went to maximum John's more than willing to put people in jail for a long time.

[High Plains]

7. Sadly, for every Deadhead doing federal time for LSD...

...there are probably a thousand poor black people serving decades for selling $20 worth of crack.

[Rambis]

8. No doubt it is all BS (nm)

x

[jarab]

9. Somebody's rich kid must have been mandatorily targeted.

They wouldn't change the laws for us common folk, would they?
Judges say change the law so we might protect our own. Just don't set a mandatory maximum.
The discrepanies in sentencing will still exist. Money still rules, and the have-nots will still get their 25 minutes with their court appointed ones.
This doesn't speak all compassion. It's re-establishing power back to the judges' hands.

...O...

[High Plains]

10. There is a broad-based movement for sentencing reform.

It includes many members of the congressional black caucus, whose constituents have been most adversely affected by the drug laws.

Yes, some of this is about judicial prerogatives vis a vis prosecutors, but that's fine with me. As things now stand, prosecutors wield way too much power and judges are reduced to what is basically a notary's role. We have mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines because legislators in the '80s were worried about disparate sentences, but now the pendulum is swinging the other way.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. About time! And rethink all those seizures of property, too. nt

[Mnemosyne]

13. Conyers, once again, the promulgator of "common" sense.

I thank the universe for Mr. Conyers in his new position.

Thank goodness * has not managed to replace every judge who possesses, even somewhat, some true common sense. Have they remained mostly silent previously because they knew no one in power would listen to them?

I believe we need a national vote on pot, decriminalization, at the very least. It would bring out massive voter registration and participation in an election. I imagine anyway. :evilgrin: Even many of the 25%'ers I know would vote for it.

And much of the paranoia effect could disappear, finally :), and ill people could relax and heal properly.

Good point, the drug laws are a type of "crime against humanity". When I imagine the untold and countless suffering that has been forced upon humanity that could benefit so greatly from the herb; it's just heartbreaking.

And as the Poet and Prophet once said;

The more people smoke herb, the more Babylon fall.
Bob Marley