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.

[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.

[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.

[*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.