Life sentence for pot conviction. When will the madness end?

[BenBurch]

This thread proves, yet again, that regardless how manifestly stupid a US judicial or political decision is, a large number of people will justify it because it's the US and it's laws and the enforcement of them are just so damn good.

Life for dealing grass? Ridiculous.

States wonder why they are broke...

 

[qayak]

BTW, where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to raise your own children?

The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This amendment was added because people felt that a bill of rights might allow a government to think they could restrict any right not listed thereby admitting abuse into the system that the Constitution was trying to keep out.

From Wikipedia:

In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Basically, they were saying if you don't list any rights all rights are protected but by listing some you restrict protection to only those listed. And essentially that is the exact view many people take and certainly the postion government takes.

The Ninth Amendment was put in to address the issue and although it doesn't specifically address the raising of children, that right from common law would be included.

 

[HHellpop]

The state requires its rules to be followed, or else it isn't a very effective state.

I'm guessing you've not spent too much time in Louisiana.

As a typical example, just read today that our current anti-bullying law lists several parishes (counties for you normal folk) that are exempt from it! So, school bullying is so bad that it's illegal, unless you happen to live in one of our bully-friendly towns? How effective is that?

Usually takes the feds to tell us to follow the rules...

 

[JamesDillon]

Without looking into the law, I assume it is rolled into substantive due process in the 14th Amendment.

I'm pretty sure it is now, under Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska.

 

[Furcifer]

I might not have to look very far, but have you looked that far? If not the assumption was baseless. I can't take the mere existence of a law that would make more sense if A were true than if it weren't true as evidence that A is true.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=studies+habitual+offenders&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

There are plenty. Not to mention there are several studies in that list that suggest habitual offenders are more like to pass on their delinquency to their offspring.

Career criminals are likely to engage in multiple types of offenses.

Do you really need a study to prove this? I think you're just being naive for argument sake.

Additionally, what do you mean by "repeat offender"? Do you mean they committed a crime repeatedly or that we caught and punished them repeatedly?

Just caught actually.

I'll bet some people sell pot all the time and don't commit other crimes,

I already said this. As I pointed out however they also tend to avoid the law and not get busted 4 times, or more importantly be stupid enough to continue "just selling pot" given the increasing severity of the associated penalties.
That's why I said it's important to read between the lines here. There has to be more going on than "just selling a little pot" and getting caught. There has to be, otherwise I totally agree this is completely unfair.

the pot sellers that have been thrown in a concrete box for years with a bunch of drastically worse criminals than themselves might be a different story. Moral abominations like the drug war have consequences.

Which is ridiculous, I agree.

I'm for legalizing pot and stopping the insanity and making of career criminals in jails. However, someone who has been busted 4 times is already a career criminal. His record says nothing about what else he was doing, his sentence does however.

That's something I would consider before rallying around this guy. Purely at face value it's completely bogus. YMMV.

 

[JamesDillon]

Ok, I'm honestly interested in your thoughts here.

IMHO the civil war screwed up what this country could have been had we been able to keep federal power more curbed than it's become. I think the feds are way overstepping their bounds but from a practical standpoint there isn't much we can do.

To circle this back to drug laws I think that many states would have legalized pot already if it wasn't for federal pressure. That federal pressure should be illegal IMHO. The governor of WA state recently vetoed a medical marijuana law because of a direct threat from the feds. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014913931_marijuana30m.html

I'd recommend Akhil Amar's book The Bill of Rights that I mentioned earlier if you want to read more about this. One of Amar's major themes-- probably the major theme-- is the degree to which the popular perception of state and federal authority changed between the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. In 1791, tyranny was central and liberty was local. The British monarchy subjected the colonists to all of the indignities recounted in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and their primary defense against the encroaching monarchy were local institutions like grand and petit juries and colonial legislatures. That's why, Amar argues, the original Bill of Rights was more concerned with republican structure and majoritarian rights than is commonly appreciated today. By 1866, that had all changed-- local state governments, especially but not exclusively in the South, were the enemies of liberty and the federal government was seen as a source of protection against state oppression. Thus the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, put the individualist, libertarian gloss on the Bill of Rights with which we're more familiar today. Obviously what was going on in constitutional law was also going on at other levels of government: the replacement of state power with federal power as the principal guarantor of liberty. Then of course, though Amar doesn't get to it, we'd have to think about the New Deal and the reasons underlying the Roosevelt Court's expansion of federal commerce power, which again was undertaken in large part due to the perception that localized state regulation was insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the Depression and the emergence of America as a world superpower.

I don't know if I'd say that this shift in the balance between state and federal authority "screwed up" the system or not. On one hand, it's certainly the case that the federal government has increasingly expanded its regulatory scope into areas traditionally committed to the state police power. I totally agree with you that federal interference with state medical marijuana laws is outrageous. On the other hand, the shift toward federal power hasn't been a uniformly bad thing for individual liberties. The federal government was the primary guarantor of blacks' rights during Reconstruction, and however badly it may have done at that job, it would have been far worse to leave the former slaves to the mercies of unfettered state authority. It was also the federal courts that defended free speech and free exercise rights-- to the extent they were defended-- during the World War I-II and Red Scare eras (but see: Korematsu), and the federal government-- the Warren Court with cooperation from the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, and eventually Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964-- that led the way to desegregation of public facilities and the elimination of de jure racial discrimination.

So we're certainly living in a different world than the framers of the original Constitution envisioned, but different isn't necessarily worse. The federal government is by nature less directly responsive to individual and local concerns, so to the degree that power has shifted in its direction one might argue that the current setup is less truly republican than intended. Whether that is on balance a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Do you really need a study to prove this? I think you're just being naive for argument sake.

I already said this. As I pointed out however they also tend to avoid the law and not get busted 4 times, or more importantly be stupid enough to continue "just selling pot" given the increasing severity of the associated penalties.

Since we don't really have solid data on the ones that didn't get caught or imprisoned I'm not sure causality can be clearly established there. Maybe someone bumbling enough to get caught once just tends to also be bumbling enough to get caught twice.

Besides, telling me to go look it up myself on google scholar doesn't exactly tell me if you are basing an assumption/presumption on something solid or not.

His record says nothing about what else he was doing, his sentence does however.

All his sentence says is that he's sentenced to life in prison. If he committed other crimes, he wasn't charged with them to my knowledge.

 

[Furcifer]

Since we don't really have solid data on the ones that didn't get caught or imprisoned I'm not sure causality can be clearly established there. Maybe someone bumbling enough to get caught once just tends to also be bumbling enough to get caught twice.

Well I think that's why he's taking a lot of flack in this thread for being an idiot. I know people that have been dealing for years and never got caught. In fact none of the dealers I know have never got caught.
The only people I know that have got caught are some friends back in University. They bought a bunch of stuff to sell, basically to cover their own costs. On the way home one of them had to take a leak so they pulled over.
The dumbasses picked a spot about 200m from the off ramp to the OPP. Sure enough a cruiser pulled over, probably to see if they needed assistance., and they got busted because they were smoking in the car.
Sure this is anecdotal, but in my experience there are simply too many guys "just selling pot" for the cops to even bother. It's not economically feasible to do surveillance and arrest 15 guys and get 15 lbs, when you can usually get 1 guy with 100. You really have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Besides, telling me to go look it up myself on google scholar doesn't exactly tell me if you are basing an assumption/presumption on something solid or not.

I'm sorry I just thought this was common knowledge. One of the first ones I looked at was a study on juveniles out of Calgary. It clearly shows how repeat offenders get into a variety of crimes as the number of crimes increases. That's just kids, adults are worse.

All his sentence says is that he's sentenced to life in prison. If he committed other crimes, he wasn't charged with them to my knowledge.

Again, at face value it appears very unfair. He did 4 stupid things and got caught, for something rather mundane and victimless "crimes. To react to just that seems a tad bit naive because of what we know in general about criminals. I just feel there is too little information on the specific case to get outraged at the verdict like the OP has suggested.

Of course that doesn't mean I'm not outraged at the fact that selling a little pot could land someone in jail. I really want to rally around this guy and buck the system like some people are in this thread. I just feel there is more to the story and in all likelihood it's not going to be favorable for this guy. 4 times? 4? After the 3rd time and knowing what could have happened, the suspended sentence, just dealing a little pot isn't worth it.

 

[dtugg]

Well I think that's why he's taking a lot of flack in this thread for being an idiot. I know people that have been dealing for years and never got caught. In fact none of the dealers I know have never got caught.

Yeah, you pretty much have to be a dumbass to get caught selling a little weed. Or extremely unlucky. But being caught multiple times indicates it wasn't bad luck. So this guy was a dumbass for conducting his operation in a manner that got him caught multiple times AND for being dumb enough to continue doing it after being caught multiple times.

I only know one drug dealer who has been caught. But he had like 500lbs of weed.

 

[Mycroft]

But i think the crux of the matter is the kid there.

If this guy was dealing, which it seems he was, then he shouldn't have had his kid there. Pot is harmless, and selling pot is relatively safe, but it is not totally safe, and when it becomes unsafe, it becomes really unsafe.

Alone, maybe the guy would have to get into a bit of a physical altercation, he chose to take the risk, no harm no foul. But take the same situation and add in his kid, and i think you can see where the problem comes in. An errant kick, or thrown object could leave the kid with injuries, possibly permanent ones.

I would be the grand puba of this guy's camp, if he hadn't shown such a careless attitude in regards to keeping his kid around.

If he were a beer drinker there is a chance that someone coming to the house to drink beer would become belligerent and start a fight too. Alcohol does that to people, and it's a lot more common.

 

[Resume]

Yeah, you pretty much have to be a dumbass to get caught selling a little weed. Or extremely unlucky. But being caught multiple times indicates it wasn't bad luck. So this guy was a dumbass for conducting his operation in a manner that got him caught multiple times AND for being dumb enough to continue doing it after being caught multiple times.

I only know one drug dealer who has been caught. But he had like 500lbs of weed.

If you grow to sell, your footprint becomes larger and there are more loose ends that law enforcement can focus on. Or so I'm informed.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe there will be legal consequences, maybe not. It depends on the outcome of court action, does it not?

Not in any relevant sense. The fact that the law forbids a certain action means that you're not legally free to perform that action.

Are you a lawyer? Because this simply isn't true.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So once again, please tell me what we're to do about the people whose consciences tell them it's just fine to rape, murder, and rob? You've yet to answer this and yet your entire argument hangs on it.

Since he won't/can't answer, I'm guessing he'll shoot them with his cap gun.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Laws are binding to me only insofar as you can exert force to make me follow them. I have accepted no social contract to follow the laws that the legislature passes. I simply do not accept their authority over me. It's really that simple. Whether that's legally the case or not is only relevant if they can catch me. The legal obligation itself is a fiction. Quite simply it's not my government and I simply don't recognize it's authority. All the legal garbage flies out the window with that. I'm sure this might be shocking to you but it's simply reality. The government itself is a legal fiction.

LOL!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Actually, that's basically what happened. Helmsley and her 80-year-old husband were charged with over 200 counts of criminal tax evasion and mail fraud. It's not like she failed to pay a bill from the IRS. Her husband was ruled too sick to stand trial, so she was tried alone. Key testimony against her came from an accountant who was under investigation for crimes in other cases and apparently made a deal with prosecutors. Her appeals attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Robert Bork (quite a spectrum), contended that she was framed for political purposes. It's hard to believe that if she had been offered the chance to pay a civil fine and penalty she wouldn't have taken it.

So they just kicked down her door and arrested her, with sending even a single letter that said she was being audited or owed additional taxes? Really?

 

[JamesDillon]

I'm not comparing the two. I'm saying it was a "duly enacted law." The question was about people who think that "duly enacted laws" should be enforced regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

And the statement I made referred to laws duly enacted by a morally legitimate, reasonably representative government, which, as I've already explained, the antebellum South was not.

Edited to elaborate: Really, is this the best you and NewtonTrino can come up with? Slavery? Is it really necessary to explain that when I initially suggested that there's nothing evil about believing that duly-enacted laws should be enforced even if you personally dislike them, I had in mind laws of the sort that we were actually discussing-- duly enacted by a representative legislature in a community recognizing basic rights to political representation and participation by all citizens regardless of race, gender, etc? This has nothing to do with slavery or Nazis or any of the innumerable other morally illegitimate regimes that have existed over the course of history. Fixating on these irrelevant examples as if they prove something-- other than the moral superiority of the system under which we're fortunate to live-- is either incredibly dense or disingenuous.

 

[sgtbaker]

If he were a beer drinker there is a chance that someone coming to the house to drink beer would become belligerent and start a fight too. Alcohol does that to people, and it's a lot more common.

I think it was mentioned on the first page but it's the law that makes pot dangerous. A dealer will likely have two things in his/her house, cash and stash. It's very unlikely that an individual would come to your house, under the guise of comradery, with the intent to steal your alcohol, it's a risk with dealing drugs.

 

[Taarkin]

Let's return to what I've said earlier-- that part of the reason we should respect democratically-enacted law arises from the fact that such law reflects popular sovereignty and acknowledges the equal political rights of co-citizens to engage in self-government. Obviously, the pre-1866 South did not do that. It certainly didn't do it for slaves, who weren't recognized as having any political rights at all, and it systematically denied the rights of free blacks and even abolitionist whites. It was not a legitimately democratic system, so there was no moral obligation for anyone to abide by its mandates.

1) Does this mean that it's ok to break any laws passed without universal suffrage? (fun note: more blacks are denied suffrage today then in 1870)
2) If there was universal suffrage back then but slavery was legal anyway, would you support the arrest and imprisonment of Harriet Tubman?

 

[Bob001]

So they just kicked down her door and arrested her, with sending even a single letter that said she was being audited or owed additional taxes? Really?

Actually, yes. The Helmsleys were indicted by a grand jury for criminal fraud, conspiracy and related charges after a lengthy investigation by U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani that was prompted by allegations from contractors that she was charging personal expenses to business accounts. I don't think anybody literally broke her door down. But calling a press conference to announce that you're being arrested for committing numerous federal crimes is pretty close. Her lawyers contended that the dispute should have been treated as a civil matter, but the feds did not agree. If the Helmsleys could have made the whole thing go away by paying a fine, they certainly would have. You seem to think that the IRS will come after you only if you refuse to pay their bill. That might be true if you have simply made an error interpreting the law. But if the feds think you've willfully committed a crime, as they did in the case of the high-profile and widely loathed Helmsleys, they will prosecute you as a criminal, and waving your checkbook won't solve your problem. Her case is complex, and she probably tried to get away with something (although there are differing opinions about that). And they certainly sound like awful people. But since someone else mentioned her name I was just making the point that underpaying her taxes by less than four percent was a questionable basis for sending a 74-year-old woman to prison.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Actually, yes. The Helmsleys were indicted by a grand jury for criminal fraud, conspiracy and related charges after a lengthy investigation by U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani that was prompted by allegations from contractors that she was charging personal expenses to business accounts. I don't think anybody literally broke her door down. But calling a press conference to announce that you're being arrested for committing numerous federal crimes is pretty close. Her lawyers contended that the dispute should have been treated as a civil matter, but the feds did not agree. If the Helmsleys could have made the whole thing go away by paying a fine, they certainly would have. You seem to think that the IRS will come after you only if you refuse to pay their bill. That might be true if you have simply made an error interpreting the law. But if the feds think you've willfully committed a crime, as they did in the case of the high-profile and widely loathed Helmsleys, they will prosecute you as a criminal, and waving your checkbook won't solve your problem. Her case is complex, and she probably tried to get away with something (although there are differing opinions about that). And they certainly sound like awful people. But since someone else mentioned her name I was just making the point that underpaying her taxes by less than four percent was a questionable basis for sending a 74-year-old woman to prison.

I see. So they were criminally trying to evade taxes and you don't think they should be sent to prison?