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?

[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.

[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.