Mandatory Minimums
The wheels of American Justice, just turn and turn...assuming you can get a trial, of course (the SC has yet to weight in on the issue of whether the government really needs to give you a trial at all).
Somebody please explain to me how Andrew Fastow gets ten years for destroying the financial futures of tens of thousands of people by lying and stealing from the public, while a Young woman gets twelve years for being a "part" of a crime she didn't even know was taking place.
These people stole billions from unsuspecting investors. They lied about the state of their company. It's called fraud. Every single one of them should go to jail for the rest of their lives.
Except there's no room for them in jail: We have to continue to imprison people like this:
Date of birth: 1964
Federal sentence: Life plus 5 years
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute
crack cocaine
Prior convictions: None
Date of sentencing: 1992
Algernon Lundy, a Alabama businessman for 15 years and
a father, had never been in trouble with the law and maintains
his innocence. Prosecutors said his cleaning service business
was a cover for a massive crack distribution ring and that he
was the organizer and his friends Ronald and Alvin were his
deputies. No drugs or cash were found or seized, no specific
drug activity recorded, no controlled buys conducted and no
drug source or drug customers identified. Algernon was convicted
of an 18-month involvement in a crack conspiracy almost
entirely on the testimony of Ronald. The sentencing
judge indicated he was bound by mandatory laws to impose
the life sentence. After the trial, Ronald wrote the judge that
he had been threatened and manipulated into falsely testifying
against Algernon in exchange for a lower sentence. The
courts, however, have ruled that Algernon should remain in
prison for life. Ronald is serving a 20-year sentence; the third
co-defendant remains at large.
What the hell is that? No evidence of any actual drugs? Nothing? And the guy gets MORE time than Fastow? Amazing!
This is exactly what we need more of, Repulicans! A judicial system that makes damn sure a judge doesn't become all "activist" and sentence according to the specifics of a case.
on
| § 1
§ One Comment
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I agree completely.
I agree completely. Mandatory sentencing guidelines are a crock. That case sounds like a particularly bad example. The drug war is one of the primary driving forces behind the erosion of civil liberties. More bad laws have been passed, and more people imprisoned, by the war on drigs than for any other reason in our history.
Where the Patriot Act goes too far, it is usually where the DEA and ATF and others have finally been granted powers they have been demanding for years so that they could better fight the war on drugs.
And, remember, both sides of the aisle have been pushing for these things whenever they need to look tough on crime. Like overspending the taxpayer's money, this is a bipartisan sin. And both sides are wrong when they do it.
And btw, when conservatives complain about judicial activism, that isn't what they mean.