T
The420Guy
Guest
By pardoning two low-level nonviolent drug offenders yesterday,
President Clinton has moved appropriately to soften the injustice of
the nation's harsh mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. There are scores
more languishing in federal prison who deserve to have their sentences
commuted.
Approved by Congress in the mid-1980s, mandatory-minimum sentencing
laws require judges to impose lengthy prison sentences on criminals
convicted of drug offenses. Some sentenced under the law are the
dangerous drug kingpins that Congress intended to target, but many
others, defense attorneys say and the vast majority of federal judges
agree, are bit players. Many are women who simply got snared in a
boyfriend's drug operation.
The mandatory-minimum sentencing laws ignore many meaningful
distinctions: a drug defendant's minor role in the crime; the absence
of any past criminal record; the fact that more culpable crime
partners received lighter sentences because they were able to cut
deals with prosecutors by fingering higher-ups in a drug enterprise.
None of those mitigating factors matter. Under the law, federal judges
must impose harsh penalties based solely on the amount and type of
drug involved.
Unlike Leonard Peltier, the Indian activist convicted of murdering two
FBI agents in 1975 whose clemency bid has gotten high-profile
attention in recent weeks, these low-level drug offenders asking for
mercy have no history of violence. They have killed no one.
Noting that 2000 is a Jubilee year -- a 50th year in both the Jewish
and Christian tradition when debts are forgiven and prisoners freed --
more than 675 clergy have written to ask the president to free
nonviolent drug offenders. Some 24,000 federal inmates meet this
description. The president cannot and should not free them all, but he
should free more than two.
Eric Sterling, president of the Washington-based Criminal Justice
Policy Foundation and a leading clemency advocate, advises the
president to appeal to federal judges for help: "Ask them to send him
the name of one or two of the cases that they lost sleep over because
the sentence the judge was forced to impose was egregious." That seems
a sensible first step.
The president should also consult prison authorities and federal
prosecutors for clemency candidate recommendations. It's hard to
imagine a better way to for Clinton to end his presidency than by
dispensing a bit of mercy and fairness.
_____________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
Newshawk: Sledhead
Pubdate: Sat, 23 Dec 2000
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2000 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
Address: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento CA 95852
Feedback: https://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
Website: Northern California Breaking News, Sports & Crime | The Sacramento Bee
Forum: https://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.html
Cited: Criminal Justice Policy Foundation Home
President Clinton has moved appropriately to soften the injustice of
the nation's harsh mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. There are scores
more languishing in federal prison who deserve to have their sentences
commuted.
Approved by Congress in the mid-1980s, mandatory-minimum sentencing
laws require judges to impose lengthy prison sentences on criminals
convicted of drug offenses. Some sentenced under the law are the
dangerous drug kingpins that Congress intended to target, but many
others, defense attorneys say and the vast majority of federal judges
agree, are bit players. Many are women who simply got snared in a
boyfriend's drug operation.
The mandatory-minimum sentencing laws ignore many meaningful
distinctions: a drug defendant's minor role in the crime; the absence
of any past criminal record; the fact that more culpable crime
partners received lighter sentences because they were able to cut
deals with prosecutors by fingering higher-ups in a drug enterprise.
None of those mitigating factors matter. Under the law, federal judges
must impose harsh penalties based solely on the amount and type of
drug involved.
Unlike Leonard Peltier, the Indian activist convicted of murdering two
FBI agents in 1975 whose clemency bid has gotten high-profile
attention in recent weeks, these low-level drug offenders asking for
mercy have no history of violence. They have killed no one.
Noting that 2000 is a Jubilee year -- a 50th year in both the Jewish
and Christian tradition when debts are forgiven and prisoners freed --
more than 675 clergy have written to ask the president to free
nonviolent drug offenders. Some 24,000 federal inmates meet this
description. The president cannot and should not free them all, but he
should free more than two.
Eric Sterling, president of the Washington-based Criminal Justice
Policy Foundation and a leading clemency advocate, advises the
president to appeal to federal judges for help: "Ask them to send him
the name of one or two of the cases that they lost sleep over because
the sentence the judge was forced to impose was egregious." That seems
a sensible first step.
The president should also consult prison authorities and federal
prosecutors for clemency candidate recommendations. It's hard to
imagine a better way to for Clinton to end his presidency than by
dispensing a bit of mercy and fairness.
_____________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
Newshawk: Sledhead
Pubdate: Sat, 23 Dec 2000
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2000 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
Address: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento CA 95852
Feedback: https://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
Website: Northern California Breaking News, Sports & Crime | The Sacramento Bee
Forum: https://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.html
Cited: Criminal Justice Policy Foundation Home