End mandatory sentences
Angelos, who was sentenced in 2004 to 55 years in prison for selling small amounts of marijuana while carrying a handgun, is the textbook example of an unjust federal sentencing scheme. Under federal guidelines, Angelos will serve more prison time than a rapist, a kidnapper or an airplane hijacker. He'll serve more time than someone convicted of second-degree murder.
Had Angelos been charged for his crimes in state court, he likely would have served about eight years for his offenses, his attorneys have said. The difference is, state court judges are allowed to judge. They are not bound by cookie-cutter guidelines that preclude them from taking into account mitigating or aggravating factors or other information as they impose a sentence.
It's interesting that federal lawmakers, some of whom on occasion deride "activist judges," do not recognize how mandatory minimum sentences hamstring federal judges. It speaks volumes that the judge who sentenced Angelos, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell of Salt Lake City, continues to speak out on this issue. Earlier this week, Cassell addressed a House Judiciary Committee on the matter, remarking that "mandatory minimum sentences mean one-size-fits-all injustice."
No question, it's difficult to re-offend if one is serving 50 years in prison. And an argument could be made that some would-be criminals may be dissuaded from committing crimes if they know they will face a long federal prison stretch. It's doubtful, however, that most criminals apply cost-benefit analyses to their prospective illegal activities.
Most will become aware of the possibility of a very long prison sentence once they are charged with their respective crimes. Once convicted, judges are bound by the sentencing guidelines. In Angelos' case, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his sentence, ruling that it was Congress' intent to severely punish crimes involving guns and drugs. The Supreme Court has refused to take up the matter.
So the remedy for this needs to be legislative. Congress needs to roll back the mandatory minimum scheme and permit a judge to use all of the facts before him or her when imposing a sentence. This should not be viewed as a power grab on the part of judiciary. It's a matter of justice
Recent comments
This sentence is ridiculous and shows just how corrupt our justice...
Anonymous | Aug. 23, 2007 at 7:11 p.m.
