Monday, August 12, 2013
Holder's New Drug Guidelines- Some Questions
So Eric Holder wants to change the sentencing guidelines for non-violent offenders, does he? It may sound reasonable on the surface, but the devil is in the details.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/12/holder-to-call-for-changes-in-drug-sentencing-guidelines/?test=latestnews
As far as federal courts and agencies are concerned, nobody is trying to prosecute people for mere drug possession. Yes, there is a possession statute, which I recall is 21 USC 844, but that is really used for bargaining purposes. It is also true that some federal drug offenders see their parole or probation violated because they fail a drug test.
The fact is, however, that federal drug prisoners are there because they engaged in some form of drug trafficking involving a significant commercial amount of drugs involving a significant amount of money.
I will also concede that as violent and deadly as the drug traffic is, there are many offenders not involved-at least directly- in violence. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't deserve to be locked up. For example, what do we do with the courier who is arrested bringing in large amounts of heroin or cocaine into the country, the pilot, boat captain, or the driver? They are at the lower end of the conspiracy to be sure, but if they are carrying say 5 kilos of heroin, what is their moral culpability? To be sure, the higher ups are a better target and deserve more time, and efforts are made to secure the cooperation of the lower players to affect that end. Yet, should there not be strong deterrent to one who would be tempted to act as a courier for a large amount of drugs?
At the same time, does Holder have a plan as to the heads of organizations who never touch the dope and may never even see any violence carried out by other members of their organizations? Leslie "Ike" Atkinson comes to mind. He was the head of arguably the largest heroin smuggling ring in the world in the 1970s and served over 30 years in prison. As one who was involved in that case while stationed in Bangkok with DEA, I don't recall any hint of him being a violent man. Was it an injustice that he served 30 years (on two separate convictions, mind you)?
Some of these may seem like dumb questions, but keep in mind the nature of Eric Holder and the current Justice Department. My suspicion is that they are just looking for another way to weaken our drug laws and put more people back on the streets. Already, California is in the process of releasing 10,000 people back onto the streets because of so-called overcrowding thanks to some judge.
And how will DOJ define a violent offender? Will it be only by the last offense even though there may indeed be a prior history of violence? If you go by the California model, you may assume the worst.
Like everything else with this present DOJ and attorney general, I smell something fishy. I hope Congress takes a good look at it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The fact is, however, that federal drug prisoners are there because they engaged in some form of drug trafficking involving a significant commercial amount of drugs involving a significant amount of money.
I guess they never let you work on the more sordid cases where someone rightfully arrested for a large quantity of trafficking and a couple of murders on the side tries to get his sentence cut way back by feeding DEA a tale that a whole town is living on massive drug operations, leading to a massive force descending on the town demanding that a retired army sergeant and his school teacher wife account for where they got the money to buy an $80,000 ranch house after a lifetime of working and saving, while half the males in town are carted off.
I guess you don't know that if a major dealer asks his college bound cousin to transport one package, when dealer gets caught, he gives up the cousin, who gets three life sentences as a co-conspirator for the entire amount the entire gang ever trafficked, while the kingpins get their sentence down to 3 years for cooperation.
There are indeed all kinds of crooked deals that could be cut over people who ought to stay out of circulation a long time, but there are also all kinds of people in the federal system who never should have been prosecuted in the first place.
Oh, your boyfriend's dead, but we gotta prosecute someone, so I guess that's you. What do you know about this business? Nothing. That's why you're going to get a life sentence. Now if you knew something and told us all about it we could let you out in five years, but if you don't know anything, you get life.
They probably didn't let agents who had integrity in on those deals, but they happen all the time.
Siarlys,
You watch too much TV.
There is an old saying:
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
Too bad Holder never herd of it.
Squid
Holder is a man of the times. The war on drugs has failed, the USA has too many men in prison on minor drug charges, prison overcrowding is a political and judicial issue - so what's a man to do?
We are in a Weimar-like period of decadence which is unstoppable. Legalization of weed is not far off, along with small quantities of meth, crack, etc. Gotta be frustrating for a former DEA puke.
Anonymous,
How easy to call someone names under the label of anonymous.
What is frustrating to this DEA puke is that I have also seen up close and personal the suffering of addicts. Nobody wants to see them in treatment instead of jail more than I do. It increases the anger toward those who traffic in drugs. They truly deserve to be in prison. It is sad that people like Holder-and I guess you as well- don't see that.
Do yourself a favor; remain anonymous.
Ditto re Siarlys and movies, also probably books without a word of truth in them. He is in la-la land on this topic for sure.
And for Anonymous, come see me and call me a puke to my face if you have the huevos, which you obviously don't. Probably just a common worthless dope fiend.
TV? This stuff OCCASIONALLY makes it onto TV. I mostly get it first hand, from the people it happened to, or their families. You're right about addicts. You're right about people who traffic large quantities of drugs. You're wrong about the way the federal enforcement system works. Lots of people who haven't done any crime are doing lots of time, and, people who have done small crimes are doing the time for people who have done the large crimes, who know how to work the system. What was the phrase again... "Oh ye suckers."
Elwood,
That is why he is anonymous, so he can call people names in the blogosphere with impunity. Me, I sign my name.
I have used a consistent nom de plume for over fifteen years because I want to keep my personal life private, distinct from a public persona. Many well known and respected authors have done no less.
elwood obviously doesn't want to step outside his comfort zone, so he is in denial that bad things could EVER happen to good people. No books elwood... live first-hand accounts. And I've read some of the transcripts and appeal briefs.
Post a Comment