That punishment seems so cruel and unusual
A sentence of 55 years for selling three 8 ounce bags of weed to an undercover cop is upheld by the Supreme Court. And he had a handgun that was never brandished. Interesting:
Four former attorneys general and 145 former prosecutors and judges wrote in support of a lighter sentence for Angelos. Even the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, an appointee of President Bush, called the sentence “unjust, cruel and irrational.“ But he said the law left him no choice.
Just doing your job, huh?
December 4th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Paging Don Bosch…
December 4th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Ok, here’s where I remind all believers in the Second Amendment of our motto: Don’t punish honest citizens who want to keep and bear arms for recreation and self-defense, punish criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Yeah, nk, I have to agree.
Although the punishment is way too harsh, “enforcing existing gun laws” is something I support.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
55 years? Vs. say one?
Just saying.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Rustmeister,
I guess you meant that as sarcasm. My point was that the drug selling offense was enhanced by the “use” of a gun during its commission. The handgun without the marijuana would have been no federal crime at all. We have lost a lot and there is a lot left to lose. We are in no position to defend the right to keep and bear arms by drug dealers.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
“55 years? Vs. say one?” Believe it or not, I spent the most productive and energetic part of my legal career arguing proportionality of punishment in criminal appeals. In non-capital cases the jusdges’ answer was: Tell it to the legislature. I did clemency petitions to the governor.
December 4th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
There is a difference between merely possessing something and using it.
It is all the difference between holding hands and rape.
December 4th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
How do we define the concept of justice? I would say that if you do something to harm another in some way, you should be held accountable, with a strong focus on restitution to the victim(s).
Now, where’s the victim? Let him come forward and state his grievances!
Starting with a clean slate (or, say, the U.S. Constitution) how would any of you apply the concept of justice (or your understanding of the concept of justice) to this situation? Who is the perpetrator, if any, and who, if anyone, is the victim? Who’s rights have been violated and who is deserving, therefore, of restitution?
Or are we all going to play the game of: Hey, I don’t want the cops to come a knocking, and I don’t want to be stigmatized, so I’ll say something nice and safe and politically correct. If the latter, how long do you believe this strategy will “work” if adopted by a majority of Americans?
December 4th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
No sarcasm at all.
What I’m saying is the punishment is too harsh, but that’s the way the law was written.
Like you said, arguing for a pot dealers gun rights doesn’t help the cause.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Well if the undercover cop had been 92 and female he could have killed her and only lost three weeks pay.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Rustmeister, I apologize for misunderstanding you.
[Say Uncle, I wrote the same thing earlier but the spam filter ate it because it doesn’t like you-know-what. I left my URL out his time. Let’s see if it works.]