Whoa...55 year sentence.

[hardheadjarhead]

Is it just me, or is this a tad harsh?

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTI...US_/9bd49ce5-83e3-4306-bab0-b70b7a9d189d.html

The sentence was for the gun...but I think they tied it in with the dope.

Thoughts?


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

For a first offence, that's way too harsh. 55 years doesn't really ever give a person a chance demontrate whether they have been rehabilitated.

 

[OUMoose]

Cassell said he would call on President Bush to commute Angelos's sentence and Congress to change sentencing laws for drug offenders.

Ummmm... Isn't Bush from Texas? You know, the state where they have the death penalty for things like... Jaywalking?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

That's some b******t right there.

I can't believe it.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Ummmm... Isn't Bush from Texas? You know, the state where they have the death penalty for things like... Jaywalking?

Govenor Bush had a record number of people put to death under his stay in office. He "streamlined" or "fasttracked" the procedure so more people could be executed.

Another reason he's one of my *favorite* people. (/sarcasm)

 

[Adept]

Ummmm... Isn't Bush from Texas? You know, the state where they have the death penalty for things like... Jaywalking?

Yeah, but its also the state where every man and his dog has a gun.

I can't believe the penalty for carrying a firearm is 55 years. Murder is only 25 in Australia...

 

[shesulsa]

I still want the smiley that has it's head in its hands, shaking the head.

 

[mj_lover]

thats ridiculus, 55 years! heck, you get less for being a murderer/rapist

 

[punisher73]

Each state has a penalties for murder and rape depending on the circumstances. Just saying outright that he will get longer than a murder or rapist doesn't really mean anything.

Look at the circumstances of the case. It wasn't someone who was carrying a gun and had a little baggy of marijuana for personal use on him. He has long been suspected of being a drug dealer, who also was into money laundering (which would mean he wasn't just a little low street dealer, but would have been up higher in the chain) along with carrying the gun while trafficking. If you work in law enforcement or know someone who does ask him how many people they know who are just like this guy who has shot people or killed people when a deal goes bad. Look at the totality of everything and see "why" someone might have constructed guidelines like these. It is the threat that a person posses to the community and a deterence to others, not just as a punishment aspect of the crime (remember sentences aren't just constructed to punish).

 

[Flatlander]

It is the threat that a person posses to the community and a deterence to others, not just as a punishment aspect of the crime (remember sentences aren't just constructed to punish).

While this is true, it is necessary to note that one of the other reasons there is a correctional system in place is to facilitate the rehabilitation of people who have committed a crime.

From the mission statement of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons:

Through the provision of health care, mental, spiritual, educational, vocational and work programs, inmates are well prepared for a productive and crime free return to society.

So the question becomes, what opportunity is there for an ex-con to demonstrate their rehabilitation with so little time left to do so?

 

[Rynocerous]

:whip: It sounds to me like this judge is trying to affect the streets on his own by instilling fear of going away for a long time on just your first offense. I think that this is the wrong way to go about, and is absolutly obsurd. I agree he should be punished, but 55 years for a first offense? Ridiculous.


Cheers,

Ryan

 

[BrandiJo]

why is it so bad...they think hes a drug trafficer and he was carring a gun ....i personaly wouldnt want him let out into my city

 

[someguy]

Bush will be torn. It's a gun so he should be like set free butmaybe he should just be executed instead.

 

[michaeledward]

Of course, it's stupid.

I don't think the judge is trying to send any message. I think there are mandatory sentencing guidelines which legislators wrote to take enforcement of the laws away from 'judicial activists' (I think that's the term they use).

The gun supporting people say we should enforce the laws that are on the books. So, certainly, all of those folks in the Firing Range are applauding this situation.

It's bad .... but really, a 55 year sentence is so much better than allowing judges tell us all that when a contract is between two people, it can not not mean two people of the same gender. Thinkaboutit.

Mike

 

[punisher73]

Before trial Angelos was offered a plea bargain with a 16-year sentence----he took his chances with his trial and only contested carrying a gun outside of his home during the drug transactions (according to the article) not any of the other charges.

Again, he is a guy who was selling drugs (again a high end dealer not a low street guy) and was associating with known gang members. This wasn't his first time doing it, it was his first time getting caught and from the way the article reads he was under surveillance a long time by the police.

------
While this is true, it is necessary to note that one of the other reasons there is a correctional system in place is to facilitate the rehabilitation of people who have committed a crime.

This is where all four components of a prison/jail sentence are intertwined..

1) Punishment
2) Rehabilitation
3) Protect society
4) Deterance for others

His sentence is constructed with an emphasis on the other 3 components not on rehabilitation. Rehabilitation was the common goal back in the 60's/70's, but the pendulum is swinging the other way now and the criminal justice system is focusing on the other 3 because of the VERY low success rate of rehabilitating the majority of criminals.

I know it seems outrageous to get 55 yrs, but I wish you could see what I see working in LE. Most of the murders in my city are drug related (ie: gang members shooting other gang members over drugs or drug money). BUT, there has been a new trend lately and that is killing a family member of the drug dealer to make a point. A couple weeks ago a lady in her 60's was tied up in her bedroom and shot in the head because her son (a drug dealer) had ticked off the wrong people. Earlier this year a married couple had their heads almost cut off because their drug dealing son had ticked off the wrong people (In both cases they were small time dealers who dealt Marijuana).

And please don't think that I work in some large city like NY, Chicago or LA and that stuff happens, I work in a Midwestern city of about 53,000 people. The problems associated with what this guy did and was convicted of are a huge threat to society and the laws are constructed to reflect this.

 

[Adept]

Again, he is a guy who was selling drugs (again a high end dealer not a low street guy) and was associating with known gang members. This wasn't his first time doing it, it was his first time getting caught and from the way the article reads he was under surveillance a long time by the police.

I'm not contesting that. He definately deserves more than a slap on the wrist, and the punishment may not have been too far out of line. In Australia, a life sentence is classed as 25 years. If you murder someone, I mean pre-meditated murder in the first degree, you can only be sentenced to 25 years in jail, as a maximum term.

The only way to get a longer term handed down is for a special legislation to be passed by government specifically stating that the person in question may be held indefinately.

55 years is a very severe penalty when compared to the Australian equivalent. Now take into account that the sentence is the minimum one for the crime. If a little old lady was carrying a weapon for self defense, she would also be sentenced to 55 years in jail. I dont see the penalty as being fit for the crime.

 

[MA-Caver]

Ceicei and I were talking about this tonight. I read the paper today about it and basically... I agreed with the sentence.
This is a guy who's been caught many times before but apparently the DA didn't have enough to warrant a trial or a conviction. Now it seems that they did. The guy was offered the plea bargain and turned it down... <why oh why didn't I take the Blue pill?>, thus got what the judge who followed the book the sentence.
He's a repeat offender and drug dealer and it seems to me that he's had plenty of opportunities to, err, repent and quit doing what he's doing.

From the Shawshank Redemption: Andy Dufrene: "Maybe you should think about a new line of work?"
Tommy Williams:"What do you mean?"
Andy: "I mean, you don't seem to be a very good thief if you keep getting caught."

This guy carried a gun to basically every drug-deal he went on. Most dealers do because it's smart and because the 99.999% chance that the people you're dealing with are armed as well... better to even the odds.
This tells me that the guy is potentially dangerous and had intent of causing bodily harm should a deal go wrong for whatever reason! I mean what else are you bringing a gun for? This made him a dangerous individual and at 21 which is the beginnings of (true) maturity, which doesn't give a lot of confidence in his ability to be tactful and diplomatic should anything go wrong with a deal.
His family whines about the 55 year sentence and calls it "torture". Well, geez, didn't they know the guy was a habitual dealer and armed to boot.
If I'm not mistaken he was caught with a gun every time he got busted.
What does this tell LEO's?? The guy could've used his weapon on them just as easily as he could've on the guy(s) who tried to screw the deal.
The judge followed the book and what that state says is manditory sentencing. It just added up to 55 years from all of those counts against him. Tough luck I say. Good luck for all the potential buyers who could've died from his "merchandise".
I'm sorry, but he got what he deserves IMO. Hopefully this will make younger dealers think twice, probably not likely but maybe one or two might have a thought in passing about changing their venues/chosen line of work as a result of this guy's "harsh" sentence. Unfortunately the money that can be made is just too strong of a lure to make the young think about the possible consenquences.
We complain about the "war on drugs" and it's relative ineffectiveness. When people cry out injustice at a severe sentence such as this, and I will agree that the sentence is severe but... it's merited, then they are fighting against those who are waging the war to protect our children and basically good people from the filth that's being smuggled into our country on a daily basis.
Other countries are well known for life sentences for drug related crimes. Why are we so much easier? Perhaps if our will to win the war on drugs (and crime basically) is as strong as our words then maybe we'll do a better job.

Respectfully :asian:

 

[punisher73]

In Michigan the penalty for murder is life in prison and usually life in prison without the posibility of parole (this is for 1st and 2nd degree murder). Not sure what other states have.

I sat in court yesterday while a man was writed back from prison so he could be sentenced on ANOTHER felony and he was given another 50-75yrs for having sex with an 11 yr old girl.

So usually across the board, at least in michigan, there are high sentences for all crimes that are deemed dangerous to society and the person who commits them is removed for a very long time to insure that they are no longer a threat to society.

 

[michaeledward]

The problems associated with what this guy did and was convicted of are a huge threat to society and the laws are constructed to reflect this.

and the root of those 'problems' that are a 'huge threat to society'? Oh, yeah, marijuana.
Now, let's think this through.

"if marijuana is outlawed, only outlaws will have marijuana"​

If we substitute 'guns' for 'marijuana' in that sentence, we get the NRA's most popular bumper sticker (made up statistic). If you use NRA reasoning, by decriminalizing marijuana, this person would no longer be an outlaw, there would no longer be substantial tax free money available for performing commerce with the substance and thus no incentive for criminals to be involved in its trafficing.

So, why is this 55 year sentence not stupid, again?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

He's a repeat offender

Several references was made to this person being a repeat offender. Not according to the article.

SALT LAKE CITY - A judge who condemned federal sentencing laws as "unjust, cruel and irrational" said he had little choice Tuesday but to sentence a first-time drug offender caught with a handgun to 55 years and one day in prison.

If the District Attorney does not have the evidence to bring charges to trial, and convict, he is not an 'offender', repeat or otherwise. He may have been repeatedly accused of such crimes, but not a repeat offender.

 

[Deuce]

I'll have to admit that the sentence is pretty harsh for the crime. But hey, he knew he was breaking the law. I think that some criminals sometimes justify their illegal actions based on a minimal consequence. I'm sure that the thought of "is the crime worth the time?" has crossed the minds of at least some criminals before engaging in illegal activities. Harsh sentencing may smarten some people up.