55 years in prison for selling marijuana, murderers serve less time than that Options

[illumineering]

From the NY Times

DENVER, Jan. 10 - A federal appeals court has upheld a 55-year prison term imposed on a Utah man with no criminal record who was convicted in 2003 of selling several hundred dollars worth of marijuana on three occasions.

The case of the man, Weldon H. Angelos, a record producer from Salt Lake City who was 22 at the time of his crime, has become a benchmark in the debate about sentencing rules and justice. The trial judge in the case complained in issuing the sentence, which was required by federal statutes, that he thought it excessive, and 29 former judges and prosecutors agreed, in a brief filed on Mr. Angelos's behalf.

But a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision issued here late Monday, rejected those arguments. The sentence properly reflected the will of Congress, the court said, and was not cruel or unusual punishment. Mr. Angelos was reported by a witness to have been armed with a pistol during two of the drug sales - and requiring stiffer sentences in cases where drugs and violence are linked, the court said, is legitimate social policy.

"Although the district court concluded that Angelos's sentence was disproportionate to his crimes, we disagree," the court said. "In our view, the district court failed to accord proper deference to Congress's decision to severely punish criminals who repeatedly possess firearms in connection with drug-trafficking crimes, and erroneously downplayed the seriousness of Angelos's crimes."

Mr. Angelos's lawyer, Jerome H. Mooney, said the decision would be appealed, either for reconsideration by the full Court of Appeals here in Denver or directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Angelos's sister, Lisa Angelos, said in a telephone interview from Salt Lake City that she had not yet been able to speak with her brother, who is serving his sentence at a federal prison in Lompoc, Calif.

"This was all of our hopes," Ms. Angelos said of the appeal.

The appeals panel did conclude that the police, in searching Mr. Angelos's home, had exceeded the limits of a search warrant as they looked for the source of a strong marijuana smell. But the evidence the officers found in following their noses, the court said, had not materially influenced the outcome.

The court also said that Mr. Angelos's lack of a criminal record appeared to be more about luck in not getting caught than any indication of innocence.

"The evidence presented by the government at trial clearly established that Angelos was a known gang member who had long used and sold illicit drugs," the court said. "In addition, the government's evidence established that Angelos possessed and used a number of firearms, some stolen, to facilitate his drug-dealing activities."

But Mr. Mooney, the defense lawyer, said he thought Mr. Angelos was a victim of politics and of courts that he called too willing to bend to political winds.

"How deferential to Congress should they be on these issues?" he said. "Courts are uncertain and are erring on the side of being more conservative than I think they ought to be."

This seems like a rather harsh punishment for selling weed. Any thoughts?

[fameONE]

The prison system is fcuked up.

The trend is that blacks and latinos are generally drug dealers. When you grow up being cornered, you have to fight your way. Its real easy to sell a quarter pound (and I'm not talking about the burger). If you don't have money, going to school doesn't mean anything if your family needs food now.

I can speak from experience.

Debating the financial crisis of our nation's ghettos is another topic altogether. But there's a race issue involved and everyone ignores it. And unfortunately, if a black/latino points it out, they're playing the race card. I digress.

[*kryogenix*]

The prison system is fcuked up.

The trend is that blacks and latinos are generally drug dealers. When you grow up being cornered, you have to fight your way. Its real easy to sell a quarter pound (and I'm not talking about the burger). If you don't have money, going to school doesn't mean anything if your family needs food now.

Welfare?

My parents came to this country with nothing. We started off in a little apartment filled with roaches, but we're here now because they worked extra hard.

The trend is, people like to take the easy way out. Working overtime is hard work as opposed to selling drugs, which can net you thousands in one night.

[vash1530]

^u guys on topic?

anyways i think thats a ridiculous sentence for something like selling weed! the court system has gone out of whack and something needs to be fixed.

[Hiphop d[-_-]b]

Man. 55 years for selling weed? My highschool should be locked up right now.

Thats harsh. Of course, If you catch a dude selling a dub or anythong to anyone, its illegal. Enforce the law. Dont throw them in prison for 55 years, and i strongly disagree with the court disagreeing that his sentence was disproportional to the crime.

55 in prison over some thousand dollar profited herb. Damn. thats Fuuucked up.


(Brandon - I digress with you. Fight the System ! )

[mai_z]

Well the main reason for the harsh sentence was the fact that there was dangerous weapons involved with the drug dealing. Actually, my law teacher told me a story about a guy who was sentenced more harshly because of a drug deal involving weapons. The catch? The "involvement" of the weapons was the guy was using a gun to buy weed. There were never any shots fired, or any threats involved.

Back on topic though. I think it was a bit harsh on the account that he had no previous record. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Being said, I can see their point about a weapon being carried during drug deals, multiple times, makes the situation very dangerous. So, while I find that the punishment is harsh, it is not entirely unjust.

[i_liek_sushi]

55 years?! That's pretty much a death sentence... that's way too much.

[ComradeRed]

Marijuana should be legal. No one is harmed by a marijuana trade. The person who uses it obviously values his happiness above his health and that's his choice to make since he's no one's enemy but his own.

[fameONE]

Welfare?

My parents came to this country with nothing. We started off in a little apartment filled with roaches, but we're here now because they worked extra hard.

The trend is, people like to take the easy way out. Working overtime is hard work as opposed to selling drugs, which can net you thousands in one night.

Welfare's a joke, man. Too inconsistent. The American dream isn't 500 dollars a month when you have a family.

[pandamonium]

erm yea thats wayyy too much. especially when weed is legal in some parts of the world. but that doesnt matter. thats a little too much.

[illumineering]

From the Correctional Service of Canada

Figure 6 : Mean Time to Parole Eligibility for Murder 1 and 2 (Years)



Examining the two series, we see there appears to be hardly any change in the mean sentence before parole eligibility for murder-1 and murder-2 cases since 1994. There was a slight increase in the mean sentence, from 22.7 years for murder-1 cases in 1994 versus 22.9 years in 2002, and also a slight increase in the mean sentence of 10.7 years to 11.0 years for murder-2 cases. However, neither change constitutes a significant trend.

I thought this graph was interesting as it shows men convicted of murder 2 in Canada, on the average, are parole eligible in 11 years!

[ComradeRed]

Welfare's a joke, man. Too inconsistent. The American dream isn't 500 dollars a month when you have a family.

See that's what's wrong with people on welfare today. Welfare isn't supposed to help you achieve the American Dream... it's supposed to keep you alive until you find a f**king job. The fact that you expect welfare by itself to pay for the American dream is part of the entitlement mentality that is the antithesis of civilized society--and that's why poor people stay poor.

I am in favor of overhauling welfare and channeling all of it into either disability benefits or (mostly) EITC, where poor people pay "negative" income tax - i.e. the more you work (up to a certain point), the more welfare you get.

[vash1530]

See that's what's wrong with people on welfare today. Welfare isn't supposed to help you achieve the American Dream... it's supposed to keep you alive until you find a f**king job. The fact that you expect welfare by itself to pay for the American dream is part of the entitlement mentality that is the antithesis of civilized society--and that's why poor people stay poor.

I am in favor of overhauling welfare and channeling all of it into either disability benefits or (mostly) EITC, where poor people pay "negative" income tax - i.e. the more you work (up to a certain point), the more welfare you get.

i agree with him brandon. with enough hard work ppl can take control of their lives and make a living. ppl get lazy on welfare... there are enough jobs right now for anyone to get back on their feet...they just have to be willing to make the effort...

[*kryogenix*]

See that's what's wrong with people on welfare today. Welfare isn't supposed to help you achieve the American Dream... it's supposed to keep you alive until you find a f**king job. The fact that you expect welfare by itself to pay for the American dream is part of the entitlement mentality that is the antithesis of civilized society--and that's why poor people stay poor.

I am in favor of overhauling welfare and channeling all of it into either disability benefits or (mostly) EITC, where poor people pay "negative" income tax - i.e. the more you work (up to a certain point), the more welfare you get.

I agree. I remember reading stories that when welfare was first introduced, people who needed it wouldn't accept it because they were too ashamed. They wanted to earn for themselves instead of freeloading off the government. Now the attitude seems to be that the government is obligated to keep you alive even if you don't work.

And I like the idea of EITC as well.

But we're way off topic.

I don't want marijuana to be legalized, but I can see the arguement for it. I don't think I'd care as much if marijuana was legalized if it could be regulated by the government. Drug dealers wouldn't have to kill people to sell their stuff. But if it was legalized today, the illicit drug trade would still be there. I suppose if marijuana was never made illegal to begin with, this problem wouldn't exist. But since it was, we're going to have to find another solution.

[fameONE]

See that's what's wrong with people on welfare today. Welfare isn't supposed to help you achieve the American Dream... it's supposed to keep you alive until you find a f**king job. The fact that you expect welfare by itself to pay for the American dream is part of the entitlement mentality that is the antithesis of civilized society--and that's why poor people stay poor.

I am in favor of overhauling welfare and channeling all of it into either disability benefits or (mostly) EITC, where poor people pay "negative" income tax - i.e. the more you work (up to a certain point), the more welfare you get.

You're still missing my point. That meager check isn't always enough to make it from week to week. Have you ever lived in a situation where working two jobs still isn't enough to suppport yor family? You can't rely on family members because they're either strung out or struggling just like you are, and you have to watch your back at all times. Its sad, but getting a job (even with some education) in the hood is pretty tough at times.

Don't come at me like I expect welfare to carry the load that the poor people don't. That wasn't what I meant by it at all. Have you ever lived in the projects? Have you ever been on welfare?

[*kryogenix*]

You're still missing my point. That meager check isn't always enough to make it from week to week. Have you ever lived in a situation where working two jobs still isn't enough to suppport yor family? You can't rely on family members because they're either strung out or struggling just like you are, and you have to watch your back at all times. Its sad, but getting a job (even with some education) in the hood is pretty tough at times.

Don't come at me like I expect welfare to carry the load that the poor people don't. That wasn't what I meant by it at all. Have you ever lived in the projects? Have you ever been on welfare?

I don't know. IIRC, we usually spend like $100 on groceries a week and we're a family of 6. Also, some of the food we buy is kinda expensive. If it was just "something-in-your-stomach" food, it wouldn't be as much. I'm fairly confident a family of four can live on $500 a month. I suppose a solution could be to not have kids you're not ready for. They can save up some money and move out of "the hood". My parents lived in Washington Heights for about five years before having my sister. They worked crazy overtime, but by the time I was six, we moved out (my parents knew it wasn't a good environment to raise kids). We couldn't rely on our relatives because they were worse off than we were. Several of my parents' friends moved to New York as well, some of them were in worse places than we were as well (cars smashed, elevator muggings, robberies). It's hard to believe that immigrants that came to this country with nothing can do better than people born here who receive government handouts.

Or, they could try and improve the image of the town. My English teacher told us that some areas around here were like slums, but the residents tried to improve the image and developers eventually came. Of course, drug deals and drive-bys aren't going to help improve the town's image.

But we're off topic again...

[medic]

I say good job. It is about time that law enforcement tells the drug cartel what it is going to do with you if they brake the law. Selling drugs is the worst thing that one can do, smoking it, and growing it is nothing. Distributing it, that is where the money is made, and the crime is committed. People who do it (And know people who do it), approve it in my book.

[fameONE]

I say good job. It is about time that law enforcement tells the drug cartel what it is going to do with you if they brake the law. Selling drugs is the worst thing that one can do, smoking it, and growing it is nothing. Distributing it, that is where the money is made, and the crime is committed. People who do it (And know people who do it), approve it in my book.

How is giving a man 55 years in prision for selling weed fair? People go to prison for crimes like assault with a deadly weapon for terms like 5-10 years.

[HolyMoly]

Drugs sometimes lead to murder.

[illumineering]

Drugs sometimes lead to murder.

That's completely irrelevant to the facts of this case.

[acid_high]

what about the guys who rape little girls they don't get 55 years in prison. That shit is crap I mean come on weed weed we put a dude in jail for 55 years over weed give me a break. How about the so called "justice system" find people who do hate crimes or rape little girl or beat the shit ot of their kids why don't we do that

[lavadrugs]

The give guys whi toch little girls less time then that. Was it really the serios they act as if he killed a cop or something

[*CrackedRearView*]

Just skim over the 'death penalty' thread and read a few of my examples of murderers who were paroled and went on to kill 5-10 more people before being locked up again.

Then, I beseech you, justify a 55-year sentence for a measly marijuana slinger.

10 bucks says you can't.

[SideStraddleHop]

The article quoted is obviously biased and dishonest when emphasizes at the beginning that he had no criminal record. The writer tries to point out immediately that it is unjust. However, I infer that he was convicted of 3 counts of the crime and two of those counts involved firearms. The subtitle of this thread is "murderers serve less time than that". Well a triple murderer would definately serve more time than that, and there's no way (if he's the upstanding citizen almost everyone here believes he is) he's going to do the whole 55 years.

MR#1 Selling drugs doesn't hurt anyone.
Now why did he have the gun? To bless someone? Do the math.

MR#2 Other crimes have softer penalties.
So they should have harsher penalties. If paroled murderers murder more they shouldn't have been paroled in the first place. Just because you advocate drug use/distribution/etc doesn't mean that this is too harsh a penalty.

PS Justin, I don't think I earned that $10, but I'm pretty sure your argument is shot now.

[*mipadi*]

MR#1 Selling drugs doesn't hurt anyone.
Now why did he have the gun? To bless someone? Do the math.

Why does anyone have a gun? Well, for at least a couple legitimate reasons:

1. Self-defense
2. Sport

If we start making assumptions as to why a person has a gun, and thus punish him for that, where does it end? Do we punish anyone who has a gun because we assume he might be using a weapon for an illegitimate reason? No, we only punish people who actually use a weapon for an illegitimate purpose.

[illumineering]

The article quoted is obviously biased and dishonest when emphasizes at the beginning that he had no criminal record. The writer tries to point out immediately that it is unjust. However, I infer that he was convicted of 3 counts of the crime and two of those counts involved firearms. The subtitle of this thread is "murderers serve less time than that". Well a triple murderer would definately serve more time than that, and there's no way (if he's the upstanding citizen almost everyone here believes he is) he's going to do the whole 55 years.

MR#1 Selling drugs doesn't hurt anyone.
Now why did he have the gun? To bless someone? Do the math.

MR#2 Other crimes have softer penalties.
So they should have harsher penalties. If paroled murderers murder more they shouldn't have been paroled in the first place. Just because you advocate drug use/distribution/etc doesn't mean that this is too harsh a penalty.

PS Justin, I don't think I earned that $10, but I'm pretty sure your argument is shot now.

Why is the article biased? The lack of a prior conviction/criminal record was a fact brought out during the trial.

My question is whether the length of the sentence is appropriate for the crime. Relative to sentencing guidelines for other crimes, yes, I do believe the amount of time is unjust.

No one is debating the criminal nature of illegal drug sales. The debate is over the length of the sentence. Read the my posts. No math is necessary. No one is advocating anything you are suggesting. You are grossly exaggerating the intent of the thread. You're right about not earning the $10.00. You didn't dismantle any argument.

[SideStraddleHop]

Why does anyone have a gun? Well, for at least a couple legitimate reasons:

1. Self-defense
   
2. Sport

If we start making assumptions as to why a person has a gun, and thus punish him for that, where does it end? Do we punish anyone who has a gun because we assume he might be using a weapon for an illegitimate reason? No, we only punish people who actually use a weapon for an illegitimate purpose.

I agree with an individual right to keep and bear arms, but illegally carrying (not just brandishing or firing) a weapon during the commission of another crime should make the penalties stiffer. We are not "assuming" he was using the weapon for "illegitimate purposes". He was in possession of a firearm(you cannot reasonably believe he spent the time and money required for a concealed carry permit) in the course of commiting a crime.