Whoa...55 year sentence.

[michaeledward]

And the cost to the United States Taxpayer:

$1,294,810.00​

​

The Federal Cost of Incarceration averages $23,542.00 annually. Of course, we may see some efficiency over the course of the next 55 years ... then again, we are likely to see inflation bring this total much higher, regardless of efficiencies.​

Do you suppose, you guys could just give me that amount of money for not selling some dope?​

​

​

Source : http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/treatment/#incarceration​

 

[Rich Parsons]

And the cost to the United States Taxpayer:

$1,294,810.00​

​

The Federal Cost of Incarceration averages $23,542.00 annually. Of course, we may see some efficiency over the course of the next 55 years ... then again, we are likely to see inflation bring this total much higher, regardless of efficiencies.​

Do you suppose, you guys could just give me that amount of money for not selling some dope?​

​

​

Source : http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/treatment/#incarceration​

I would settle for not paying taxes for a few years, until I would have paid that amount in.

 

[Tgace]

www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov

...it is extremely rare for anyone, particularly firsttime offenders, to get sent to prison just for possessing a small amount of marijuana. In most states, possession of an ounce or less of pot is a misdemeanor offense, and some states have gone so far as to downgrade simple possession of marijuana to a civil offense akin to a traffic violation. The numbers speak for themselves. In 1997, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), only 1.6 percent of the state inmate population had been convicted of a marijuana only crime, including trafficking. An even smaller percentage of state inmates were imprisoned with marijuana possession as the only charge (0.7 percent). And only 0.3 percent of those imprisoned just for marijuana possession were firsttime offenders. More recent estimates from the BJS show that at midyear 2002, approximately 8,400 state prisoners were serving time for possessing marijuana in any amount. Fewer than half of that group, or about 3,600 inmates, were incarcerated on a first offense. In other words, of the more than 1.2 million people doing time in state prisons across America,74 only a small fraction were firsttime offenders sentenced just for marijuana possession. And again, this figure includes possession of any amount.

On the federal level, prosecutors focus largely on traffickers, kingpins, and other major drug criminals, so federal marijuana cases often involve hundreds of pounds of the drug. Cases involving smaller amounts are typically handled on the state level. This is part of the reason why hardly anyone ends up in federal prison for simple possession of marijuana. The fact is, of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana offenses in 2001, the vast majority were convicted of trafficking. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—were sentenced for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.
It’s important to point out that many inmates ultimately sentenced for marijuana possession were initially charged with more serious crimes but were able to negotiate reduced charges or lighter sentences through plea agreements with prosecutors. Therefore, the 2.3 percent figure for simple possession defendants may give an inflated impression of the true number, since it also includes those inmates who pled down from more serious charges.
The goal of drug laws is not merely to punish, but to reduce drug use and help keep people from harming themselves and others with this destructive behavior. In recent years, with the introduction of drug courts and similar programs, there has been a shift within the U.S. criminal justice system toward providing treatment rather than incarceration for drug users and nonviolent offenders with addiction problems. Today, in fact, the criminal justice system is the largest source of referral to drug treatment programs.

 

[michaeledward]

Does that mean you will call up and explain to Anthony and Jesse how benevolent their government's criminal justice system is, by referring so many drug offenders to treatment. I'm just guessing, but I bet it will mean very little to them, as they won't be seeing their father, except through prison bars, before they are 60 years old.

It's also nice that the Criminal Justice System is so busy referring people to treatment programs. Of course, with 59% of the federal prison population being incarcerated on Drug Offenses it could be they are running out of room. Which further begs the question as to why 700 dollars worth of pot merits 55 years.

Or, perhaps, the current Administration 'Drug Policy' is reminiscent of their 'Clear Skies Initiative', you know, the one where power companies can update their old, pollution causing powerplants but not be required to improve the pollutant emmissions. A great deal for the power companies. A lousy deal for anyone hoping to have 'Clear Skies' from which to breathe.

 

[Tgace]

It’s important to point out that many inmates ultimately sentenced for marijuana possession were initially charged with more serious crimes but were able to negotiate reduced charges or lighter sentences through plea agreements with prosecutors.

 

[michaeledward]

It’s important to point out that many inmates ultimately sentenced for marijuana possession were initially charged with more serious crimes but were able to negotiate reduced charges or lighter sentences through plea agreements with prosecutors.

Why is this important to point out?

 

[Adept]

Which further begs the question as to why 700 dollars worth of pot merits 55 years.

It doesnt. The pot got him sentenced to one day in jail. He got 55 years for three seperate firearm offences. This was the minimum sentence for those offences. The drugs had next to nothing to do with it.

 

[michaeledward]

What were those firearm offenses again?

• Wearing and displaying a Glock in an ankle holster.
• Having his Glock near the center console of his car.
• Having handguns in his home. (incidently, one of these weapons was stolen)

To be clear: He did not shoot the weapon. He did not brandish the weapon.

And that's what got him 55 years.
Whew --- I'm glad I'm clear on that.

Now, why is this not a stupid sentence again?

 

[raedyn]

Each [transaction] was for 8 ounces of marijuana in exchange for $350.00 cash.

wow, this guy gives rock-bottom prices!

 

[Adept]

Now, why is this not a stupid sentence again?

In this case it is not a stupid sentence because the guy is scum. Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear if they took him out to the courtyard and summarily executed him. Call me over-zealous, or extreme, that is my personal opinion of this case.

I dont know about the handgun laws in the US, or the state in question. I'm from Australia, so handgun laws in the US dont really register on my radar.

I dont know if the crime was the own a handgun without a licence, or to carry/store it in an unsafe manner, or what the specific crime was. But I do take firearm safety very seriously. The law is the way it is for a reason. He may not have fired or brandished the weapon. But what if, due to his unsafe care of the weapon(s), his children found it and died playing with it? It is extremely important to be safe at all times with all kinds of firearms. He was not, and he paid the penalty. The punishment, in contrast to Australian penalties, does seem extreme. But many laws in many countries seem extreme to outsiders.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

In this case it is not a stupid sentence because the guy is scum.

I don't know how much personal estimation of a person on trial is worth towards sentencing, but the majority of the sentencing should be directed at what the person did, and was accused of.

 

[MisterMike]

And on another positive note:

Illinois Supreme Court Dismisses Chicago’s Suit Against Gun Manufacturers: Legal Cause “Not Found”

Thursday, November 18, 2004


Fairfax, VA—In a landmark legal decision, the Illinois Supreme Court today dismissed a liability lawsuit filed by the city of Chicago against gun manufacturers, stating there is no legal cause to hold manufacturers responsible for acts of third party criminals.



“Today’s decision affirms the argument we have been making since the beginning of these reckless city lawsuits—product manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of criminals,” said Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist of the National Rifle Association (NRA). “We applaud the Illinois Supreme Court for upholding common sense in the face of politically motivated lawsuits.”



The lawsuit, brought by the City of Chicago, is one of many attempts nationwide by gun-control activists to bankrupt the American firearms industry. Almost every court has thrown out such cases. Today’s decision marks another milestone in defense of the Second Amendment and the firearms manufacturers.



“These lawsuits seek to undermine our country’s long-standing heritage of firearms ownership. The highest court in Illinois has ruled decisively. Now perhaps Mayor Daley and other big-city politicians can concentrate on the real solution to lower crime—getting criminals off the streets so they no longer pose a threat to our families and businesses,” concluded Cox.

 

[Adept]

I don't know how much personal estimation of a person on trial is worth towards sentencing, but the majority of the sentencing should be directed at what the person did, and was accused of.

I agree, but only because it is convenient. I believe we should tailor the law to the individual as much as possible. We can't really do this on a large scale because the costs would be horrendous. We have a system where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. I disagree with that.

 

[michaeledward]

In this case it is not a stupid sentence because the guy is scum. Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear if they took him out to the courtyard and summarily executed him. Call me over-zealous, or extreme, that is my personal opinion of this case.

I dont know about the handgun laws in the US, or the state in question. I'm from Australia, so handgun laws in the US dont really register on my radar.

I dont know if the crime was the own a handgun without a licence, or to carry/store it in an unsafe manner, or what the specific crime was. But I do take firearm safety very seriously. The law is the way it is for a reason. He may not have fired or brandished the weapon. But what if, due to his unsafe care of the weapon(s), his children found it and died playing with it? It is extremely important to be safe at all times with all kinds of firearms. He was not, and he paid the penalty. The punishment, in contrast to Australian penalties, does seem extreme. But many laws in many countries seem extreme to outsiders.

Scum? On what are you basing this evaluation?

There is no indication in the firearm displayed or visible in the two controlled drug transactions was illegally owned or carried. The firearms discovered in Mr. Angelos' home were in a locked gun-safe.

You can find and read the Judge's "Memorandum opinion and order denying mortion to find 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) unconstitutional, imposing sentence, and recommending executive clemency" with just a bit of searching on the web.

Judge Paul Cassell
Case - United States of America v. Weldon Angelos

I downloaded a pdf of the document. An interesting read to say the least.

 

[Adept]

Scum? On what are you basing this evaluation?

the federal jury convicted Angelos last December of 16 counts of drug trafficking, weapons possession and money laundering.

From earlier in the thread. To be honest, the guys individual plight doesnt concern me enough to do any extra-curricular research. Basing my opinion only off the information in this thread, I feel confident in drawing the conclusion that Mr. Angelo was a drain on, and a threat to, society in general.

There is no indication in the firearm displayed or visible in the two controlled drug transactions was illegally owned or carried. The firearms discovered in Mr. Angelos' home were in a locked gun-safe.

Well, if the evidence at hand is sufficiently weak, the sentence will likely be over-turned on appeal. Like I said, I'm not reallly interested in the specifics of the case. More interested in a debate on the merits of the laws themselves.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I agree, but only because it is convenient. I believe we should tailor the law to the individual as much as possible. We can't really do this on a large scale because the costs would be horrendous. We have a system where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. I disagree with that.

This is an interesting point.

Although we are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, and the same crimes get the same (or similar) punishments, I recently met a very nice detective who was talking about some of the things he's seen while being on the force. He compared two people, both caught in possession of marijuana, and the one who had maybe 8 oz was given - what did he say, 5 years in prison? More? and the guy who was found with POUNDS of it got basically a slap on the wrists.

One of the things that worries me about sentences like those, and this 55-year one, is that they seem so disproportionate - and/or inconsistent with how others are charged.

 

[Adept]

One of the things that worries me about sentences like those, and this 55-year one, is that they seem so disproportionate - and/or inconsistent with how others are charged.

The court seems to be the last refuge of the tyrant in western society, and makes use of the one great bonus of tyranny. Speed. While it might be more fair to have a board of judges for each case (indeed, some cases do use multiple judges) that would not only triple the cost, but make the length of time before a sentence is handed down even longer, further clogging the court system.

One judge makes up his or her mind, and thats it. Come back for an appeal if you fancy your chances.

A believe a lot, in terms of conviction and sentencing could depend on the mood and personality of the judge, which isnt always a good thing.

 

[michaeledward]

the federal jury convicted Angelos last December of 16 counts of drug trafficking, weapons possession and money laundering.

From earlier in the thread. To be honest, the guys individual plight doesnt concern me enough to do any extra-curricular research. Basing my opinion only off the information in this thread, I feel confident in drawing the conclusion that Mr. Angelo was a drain on, and a threat to, society in general.


Well, if the evidence at hand is sufficiently weak, the sentence will likely be over-turned on appeal. Like I said, I'm not reallly interested in the specifics of the case. More interested in a debate on the merits of the laws themselves.

So, first he was 'SCUM' because he had weapons that may or may not have been legal, but they did pose a risk to somebody. Except there is no evidence that he was 'unsafe' with his weapons.

Now, he is a 'Drain on' society.
Except, now society is now going to pay $23,000 per year, for the next 55 years to keep him incarcerated. Additionally, his two children are going to grow up fatherless, which means they are 3 times more likely to live in poverty. Not to mention, the record label he started, Extravagent Records, produced records and tracks in the rap and hip-hop genre of music, will now no doubt collapse, eliminating possible benefits to society.

Now, he is a 'Threat to' society.
Apparently because he properly stored his firearms. Or, maybe because he was selling the second most popular drug in the world (behind alcohol). In, what is comparitively very small quantities. And this drug is legal for medical purposes in many nearby states.

While I appreciate you not wanting to learn the facts in the case. With each argument, I am learning more about Mr. Angelos. This is an abuse of the system. And it is obscene.

If it can happen to him, it can happen to me or any other citizen.

Constant vigilence is required to maintain a free society. This sentence smacks of totalitarianism.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah this guy was just an average working joe, running his own business and raising a family. Until the law just swooped down on him for no reason and locked him away. I bet he even ran an animal shelter for fuzzy little kittens.....

 

[MisterMike]

Yeah this guy was just an average working joe, running his own business and raising a family. Until the law just swooped down on him for no reason and locked him away. I bet he even ran an animal shelter for fuzzy little kittens.....

Heh - wasn't he just on Regis and Kelly's show the other day giving last minute Thanksgiving recipes? No wait, his "Entertainment LAbel" announced a generous donation to a public charity. That's it.