So many Republican candidates have run campaigns on this idea of "getting tough on crime". The conservative ideology (Christian as they are) sees no real human value, and just want to jail and forget as many people as possible. They don't believe a human being can learn and change. They don't believe in compassion (remember they call themselves Christians), and they don't have common sense in evaluating severity.
Example;
Clarence Aaron was a college student in 1992 when he introduced two dealers to each other. They paid him $1,500. Nine kilograms of cocaine were traded. A second deal didn't happen. Yet when the feds arrested the group, they charged Aaron with dealing 24 kilograms of crack cocaine, because one dealer was going to turn the cocaine into crack and the second deal had been set up. Aaron failed to cut a deal by pleading guilty and testifying against others. Aaron's sentence? Life without parole. That's right, Aaron wasn't in charge, he wasn't a professional dealer, he had been charged with a first-time nonviolent drug offense and he's serving the same sentence as the treasonous FBI-agent-turned-spy Robert Hanssen.He also received the same sentence as a multiple murderer in a state without capital punishment.
You might expect that sort of over-the-top sentence in the Middle Ages or some hellhole dictatorship that does not value human life. An enlightened nation, however, has no business locking up a kid and throwing away the key for life -- because he did something both criminal and stupid when he was, as Bush once described his early years, "young and irresponsible." I can't help but believe that if a white college kid had screwed up like this, unlike the African-American Aaron, he would have received a more fitting sentence.
This is not some abstract concept. This is a human being. This is about thousands and thousands of human beings.
There are some 2 million people in jail/prison. Many thousands are non-violent drug addicts and small time dealers. Others are thieves supporting drug habits. The sentences these people are serving are insane. These are human beings with dreams and aspirations and families, and they face an entire life in a cage.
I understand the idea that as a society we want to reduce criminal activity. It's very important. I don't understand how basically removing a person from society forever for drug offenses accomplishes anything. God forbid that people are actually helped and treated for addiction. God forbid "bleeding heart liberals" actually value a human being and want to help them. God forbid we actually believe in the intrinsic humanity in every person regardless of what they've done.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is insane. Judges are supposed to judge a persons crime and mitigating circumstances and assess an appropriate sentence. The "3 strikes" policies mandate life sentences for any combination of 3 felony convictions over a lifetime, regardless of any other circumstances.
Who is going to have the balls to stop this insanity? Who is going to force a review of all these prisoners sentences and apply a common sense justice?
Next thing you know the conservative Christians will simply want people summarily executed. Smoke a joint, be put to death... and why not? After all, when you lock up a kid for life without parole, you might as well just spare him and put him out of his misery right then and there.
7 comments:
For the most part, I agree with you.
Non violent, stupid acts, especially first time offenses, in your youth, etc, should be treated far less severely than life w/o parole.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some mandatory classes/probation etc, not just letting people off the hook for criminal activity.
But as for the violent offenders, rape, murder, etc. I think something happens to a person that allows them to commit such acts. Maybe it's "cureable" that they can return to normal society, maybe it's not.
But I think for the most violent offenses, it might be best for everyone if those people remain behind bars for the majority if not all of the rest of their lives.
Again, each case and each person may be different, and I'm all for evaluations of character and what not. If someone has "served their time" and is now a "changed man", maybe they can strive in society once again, but that's for someone else to decide on an individual bases.
Steve.
For what it's worth.. "youth" is not a factor. I hope I didn't give that impression in my post. It's as easy to fuck up when you're 40 as when you're 18. Trust me on that one.
My broad point is that mandatory minimums are a horrible travesty of justice. We have judges for a reason, and a judge would know best the character and mitigating circumstances of a person convicted of a crime.
I saw a story yesterday of a woman serving a life sentence for killing her abusive husband. The details were a bit sketchy, since the thrust of the story was not about the actual criminal act, but whatever the circumstances, a judge should have been the one to determine if the abuse was a mitigating circumstance.
Nobody is suggesting that the real bad guys should not spend life in prison. Jailing people for rediculous drug charges just costs us money as well as it being a travesty of justice.
/agree.
Steve.
The thing that really annoys me.. aggrivates me.. whatever you want to call it.. is that the kid will likely spend his entire life in prison.. and prison is not a very nice place to be. In time, nobody will give a shit about him.. just a lost soul that made one dumb mistake and lost the one and only life he will ever have... and there are thousands and thousands of people in exactly the same situation.
There's really nothing that can be done about it. It's not a politically popular position to try and revise the sentencing guidelines. The only position a politician can take is a harsher and harsher approach.
It's really an indictmnet on the psyche of Americans. Everyone knows I generally have a low opinion of Americans in general, and this is just another one of those contributing factors.
It would be easier for a politician to get elected by promising death sentences for pot-heads then for a politician to support legalizing it.
So why doesn't non-violent crime punishments as you just described not apply to Libby?
I think it does apply to Libby as anyone else. 30 months (or whatever it was he got) is a lot different than 30 years.
The idea is that there was no mandatory minimum for Libby. He got what the judge thought was appropriate. I probably would have given less prison time (I am a bleeding heart liberal after all), because it's obvious you can look at Libby and see he's not a risk, and certainly is not going to be in that position again. But, I'm not a judge.
How anyone can think that a life without parole sentence for a first non-violent drug offense is beyond me. I think the vast majority of Americans would agree.
The justice system is in desperate need of an over haul, and like I said.. it's not like we're talking about taxes. These are real human beings and it bothers me on a fundamental level that this is going on.
Yes, somone who advocates eliminating mandatory minimums and getting people LESS time in prison is obviously comparable to a Soviet Dictatorship complete with goolags....
Post a Comment