# Whoa...55 year sentence.



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 18, 2004)

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 (Nov 18, 2004)

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 (Nov 18, 2004)

> 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 (Nov 18, 2004)

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

I can't believe it.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 18, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 18, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 18, 2004)

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


----------



## mj_lover (Nov 18, 2004)

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


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 18, 2004)

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 (Nov 18, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 18, 2004)

: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 (Nov 18, 2004)

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 (Nov 18, 2004)

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


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2004)

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 (Nov 18, 2004)

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 (Nov 19, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 19, 2004)

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 (Nov 19, 2004)

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 (Nov 19, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 19, 2004)

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.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 19, 2004)

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

Ok lets....please point out how drug trafficking is not a threat to society?  I didn't say that marijuana was the root of the problems I gave concrete examples of real crime and what the people were involved in.  Want me to start giving stories of what people do for crack or cocaine?

Out of curiosity do you work in an occupation where you see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing? Or is this an academic argument about if marijuana was legal we wouldn't have these problems?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 19, 2004)

In NY marijuana possession isnt even a "crime". Its a violation punishable by a fine. Cant even put bail on it. Its the penal law equivalent of a traffic ticket. Its far from a "war" on the average pot head. If you are growing or moving pounds of the stuff its a different story.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> Ok lets....please point out how drug trafficking is not a threat to society? I didn't say that marijuana was the root of the problems I gave concrete examples of real crime and what the people were involved in. Want me to start giving stories of what people do for crack or cocaine?
> 
> Out of curiosity do you work in an occupation where you see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing? Or is this an academic argument about if marijuana was legal we wouldn't have these problems?


If marijuana was not illegal, then 'trafficking' in marijuana would not be beneficial to anyone. Any more than 'trafficking' in booze or smokes.

If you want to give examples of crack or cocaine, go right ahead, but it is irrelevant to this argument. Marijuana is not an addictive substance (whereas cocaine, in its various forms is). No one has ever overdosed on marijuana.

No I do not work in an occupation where I see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing, but I am an alcoholic, so I know a thing or two about addiction, we can perhaps have that discussion elsewhere.

Let's look again ... the judge gave a 1 day sentence for the marijuana. But because of 'Activist Legislators' getting involved in mandatory sentencing, the judge had no choice but to sentence this criminal to 55 years because he had a gun in his briefcase. 

He did not fire the weapon. He did not threaten anyone with the weapon. He had it in his possession, something, I thought the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was supposed to protect his right to do.

The sentence is STUPID !!! with a capital STUPID!!!

Good Grief


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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.


 First time offender in a court of law... yes.  But it definitely isn't the first time he did this sort of thing.  According to one of the articles I read about this issue, how many transactions was he observed to make?  How many times was a gun seen either on him or near him during these observed transactions?  More than once....  

 It could be inferred that he probably brought the gun with him during the other transactions that were not observed.  What possible reason for a gun would a dealer have?  He has it for the times when a deal might go bad...

 This is why the law was created--gun enhancement charges.  Whether this is fair could be debated.  If it isn't fair, should we wait for a deal to go bad before a body dies in order for gun charges to be added? :idunno:

 - Ceicei


----------



## Tgace (Nov 19, 2004)

Was this a "Project Exile" case?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2004)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> What possible reason for a gun would a dealer have?


Do we need to have a reason to have a gun? 

I thought the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to have a weapon, reason or no.

All you gun owners out there .... How many of you own more than, oh let's pick an arbitrary number, 10 guns? What possible reason would there be to own more than 10 guns? Is this the standard we are looking for?

* * * * * * *
Incidentally ... this partially explains why the sentence is 55 years



> Then came Tom Feeney.
> 
> Florida's former house speaker and now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives last spring attached an amendment to a popular anti-crime bill at the last minute that would severely restrict judges' discretion to give defendants breaks at sentencing. And to give the Justice Department authority to summon the sentencing records of every federal judge while reporting all sentences that buck the guidelines to the House and Senate. The amendment got even conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist publicly angry. But it became law. Sen. Edward Kennedy has introduced a bill to repeal it.


Damn that Ted Kennedy, wanting to let these criminals and terrorists off easy.


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

Found this too . . .



> *The judge noted the irony of being required to lock up Angelos until he's 70 when hours earlier, he was able to sentence another defendant to 22 years on a second-degree murder charge, for beating an elderly woman to death with a log.*


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Do we need to have a reason to have a gun?
> 
> I thought the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to have a weapon, reason or no.
> 
> All you gun owners out there .... How many of you own more than, oh let's pick an arbitrary number, 10 guns? What possible reason would there be to own more than 10 guns? Is this the standard we are looking for?


  During commission of a crime??  Sigh....  

 2nd amendment should be for any and all citizens, unless they chose to break the law. Now the question is, which law? Any law? Does this include civil disobedience? I would hesitate to try to draw the line with gun ownership. 

 That said, drug dealing does have a lot of inherit risks. So does speeding (ask any police officer who has to make "routine vehicle stops".) I wouldn't want guns revoked just for speeding, even though speeding is against the law.

 For me, personally, if the gun is actually being used during a crime (ie. in the hand, ready to shoot), then that is when the gun enhancement penalty should be added on. Merely having a gun (IMHO) is not a crime in itself.  Even then, how about those who do self defense?  Just having a gun in the hand for self defense should not be classified as a crime (although many think this way).

  I am a gun owner, and do have more than one gun.  I don't think it is any business for people to know why I have them.  

  - Ceicei


----------



## Adept (Nov 19, 2004)

Hey guys, lets slow down and analyse this for a second. The guy in the article recieved two seperate sentences. He was sentenced to 55 years in jail for carrying a firearm (I assume in an improper manner and without a licence).

 This is the _minimum sentence_ for this crime.

 He was also sentenced to _ONE DAY_ in jail for the drug trafficking offence.

 While I think the individual in question deserved to have the book thrown at him, I _still_ dont think 55 years just for _having_ the gun is fair. Remember this is a blanket minimum sentence, regardless of prior conviction or the character and lifestyle of the defendant. If you had the gun, you go to jail for (effectively) the rest of your life.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> He was sentenced to 55 years in jail for carrying a firearm (I assume in an improper manner and without a licence). This is the _minimum sentence_ for this crime.


There is no reason to make the assumption that the firearm was carried in an 'improper manner'. I have read four stories about Mr. Angelos sentence. Not one mentions any impropriaties with the weapon. 

Mr. Angelos was convicted of completing three transactions. Each was for 8 ounces of marijuana in exchange for $350.00 cash. In one of the transactions, the weapon was reportedly strapped to his ankle, in the two other instances, the firearm was reported to be 'in the vicinity'. 

The reason for the sentence is that there were three sales transactions. Each transaction, with a firearm in his possession has a mandatory sentence. The first transaction is 5 years, the second and third transactions have a requirement of 25 years to be served consecutively.

Oh, and I just saw this. The drug transactions took place in Mr. Angelos' apartment, which is where he kept his firearm. Where else would he keep his weapons? 

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2457265


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 19, 2004)

*Punisher73's comments in bold:

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.*

A high end dealer is one who sells $700 worth of pot?

No it wasn't his first time doing it.  Would that have made a difference?  Had they arrested him the first time and put him away for five years versus 55, then would he have had a chance to reflect on the errors of his ways?  As is, when he gets out he'll be eighty.  His five and six year old sons will be sixty and sixty one.  He could conceivably be a great grandfather by then...but more than likely he'll die in prison.

*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.*

The huge threat to society is crack, meth, and cat, regardless of your violent anecdotes concerning marijuana.  This guy sold two bags of dope to friends.  He's serving one day for that.  ONE DAY.  The gun charges are the ones netting him the time.

The stories you provided are informative and interesting, but not relevant.  He didn't hurt anyone.  He didn't brandish the gun he had, didn't pull it out and point it at anyone.  He didn't shoot an old woman in the head nor did he cut the throats of relatives of those he dealt with.  The time he is serving, apparently, is being served because of those murders and because society assumes he will do the same.

The judge in this case, only two hours prior to sentencing Angelos, handed out a 22 year sentence to a man convicted of beating an old woman to death with a log.  Angelos will serve over double that time and he never threatened a soul.  Apparently he'd have been better off if he had just shot someone.  As is, he'll serve time with felons who killed, and they will be released after serving one fourth of the sentence he will be serving.  Killers will go free while Angelos rots.

This isn't justice.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 19, 2004)

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

Notice again that is 16 counts! That is 16 seperate crimes.  This is not someone who was carrying an unliscensed gun and had a baggy of marijuana on them that got this sentence.  This was a drug dealer who carried the gun for "protection" while he dealt.  

Also, at least in Michigan carrying a firearm whether legal or not during the commision of a felony is a felony in and of itself.
------

Marijuana is not an addictive substance (whereas cocaine, in its various forms is).

Ok, I'll agree that marijuana is not "physically addicting" like cocaine. But that still doesn't help out the 8yr old boy who screams every night because his parents sold him for sex to get their fix of it.  There are still addictions and addiction behavior associated with it.

To quote the counselor from south park "drugs are bad mmmkay".  (sorry just had to say it once).

To michaeledwards:  In all honesty I am sorry to hear about your situation.  I never said that ANY addiction was easy. But, it doesn't help with people there to feed that addiction and want you to fail. 

 In our county they have what is called "drug court" which is an option for people who don't have an assaultive history and have drug problems to get help for their addiction instead of doing jail or prison time.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> To michaeledwards: In all honesty I am sorry to hear about your situation. I never said that ANY addiction was easy. But, it doesn't help with people there to feed that addiction and want you to fail.


I am not interested in what you think or feel about my disease, or dis-ease, if you prefer. It is irrelevant.

This sentencing is STUPID! 

The legislative bodies in this country are committing injustices by writing mandatory sentencing laws. 

The 16 offenses listed in this case were added to the complaint only after Mr. Angelos refused to accept a plea bargain which would have resulted in, I think it was 15 years, incarceration. 

15 years for selling 8 ounces of a non-addictive substance. That is less mass than what comes in a bottle of Budweiser. So, the DA went to flex his muscles.  Again, the convictions resulting in 55 years are because the firearm was in the vicinity. Nevermind that this 'criminal' and 'terrorist' was a small business owner; producing rap artists. How many young kids did he have the potential for helping with his business and entrepreneurship.

Remember, he never showed the gun as part of the transactions. Not once did he brandish the weapon. Not once did he fire the weapon.

STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!


----------



## Tgace (Nov 19, 2004)

Yeah. Rap music is a font of charitable do-gooders. 

Mandatory sentencing is a sticky subject. I dont know which is worse, mandating what the judge can sentence or allowing one judge to hammer a defendant while an identical crime in the next chamber gets the "slap on the wrist".......


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah. Rap music is a font of charitable do-gooders.





			
				CeiCei said:
			
		

> What possible reason for a gun would a dealer have?


So, Tgace, whadda ya think? CeiCei is a gun owner, and he asked this question. Do you think this is an appropriate question? Should we question people who are purchasing guns and verify 'What possible reason a record producer / off duty police officer / computer nerd / karate guy would have for a gun'?

Or maybe, we should just execute any convicted of any crime?

Again ... he didn't show the weapon, he didn't fire the weapon. In two of the counts, the weapon is reported to be "in the vicinity". 

And, as to how much 'do-gooding' the rap community does, I refer you to Queen Latifa. Also, it might be interesting if you look at the first verse of Eminem's new single 'MOSH'. 

STUPID sentence. STUPID STUPID STUPID. 

There is no justice going on. This is REVENGE and ANGER. Which, we are suppose to keep out of our Justice System ... remember the BLIND LADY?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 19, 2004)

Well..theres some streets close by my patrol area where people are getting shot regularly. 99.9% are gang/drug trade related. Now when a cop makes an arrest of a dealer on these streets and you wind up with a drug and gun charge that get plead out to maybe months in the can at best or probation at worst, the public gets pissed. 

Now when you make the same arrest and run the guy up federally on an "exile" case and he gets hammered, joe public loves it that were "taking out the trash"......we all get what we ask for. Most of the killing is around the crack trade here. They arent killing each other over weed. So unless the public decides to legalize it, that problem isnt going anywhere soon.

Personally the guy looks like a dirtbag and Im not loosing any sleep over his incarceration. Howerver its not my job to sentence people. If the public wants to change it that would be fine with me.

As to Rap...50 Cent produces porn ( i guess that could be called do-gooding to some) and the list of Rappers killed, arrested and jailed probably outweighs the likes of Latifah. But thats not because of the music, its because of the people. I guess they know their subject matter well.....


----------



## Adept (Nov 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is no reason to make the assumption that the firearm was carried in an 'improper manner'. I have read four stories about Mr. Angelos sentence. Not one mentions any impropriaties with the weapon.


 I only made the proviso since I dont know the specifics of the state laws. I assume it is legal to own a handgun, and that it is legal to transport them. Obviously if it was a licensed, registered firearm being transported in a locked case then there would be no problem. Nor would there have been a problem if he had a legal concealed carry license. Simply having the gun is not a crime (I assume) it only becomes a crime if you do it illegaly.



> The reason for the sentence is that there were three sales transactions. Each transaction, with a firearm in his possession has a mandatory sentence. The first transaction is 5 years, the second and third transactions have a requirement of 25 years to be served consecutively.


 Aha, now I understand. So the minimum sentence for the _first_ offence is five years, with second or third offences being 25 years. The first article glossed over that fact.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 19, 2004)

Aha, now I understand. So the minimum sentence for the _first_ offence is five years, with second or third offences being 25 years. The first article glossed over that fact.-----That's ok, most of the people who are saying it was stupid are glossing it over too.

Get it right, this wasn't for only selling 8 ounces of weed. Nor was it only having a gun on him "in the vicinity" nice euphemism for a concealed weapon in an ankle holster (which the article also fails to mention if it was a legally owned handgun or not). He was CONVICTED OF 16 COUNTS OF FELONIES!!!!! If you read the WHOLE sentence he got 8yrs for the drug trafficking/money laundering. Then he got 5 yrs for one count of carrying a firearm while dealing drugs, then he got another 25 yrs for the 2nd count and 25 yrs for the 3rd count.  That is what is stupid is that he didn't commit one offense just one time. He comitted multiple crimes with multiple sentences, so it was not 55 yrs for a one time incident, the sentence was stacked due to multiple offenses and convictions.

I am not interested in what you think or feel about my disease, or dis-ease, if you prefer. It is irrelevant.-----My fault for trying to be human about it, you brought it up.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> I only made the proviso since I dont know the specifics of the state laws. I assume it is legal to own a handgun, and that it is legal to transport them. Obviously if it was a licensed, registered firearm being transported in a locked case then there would be no problem. Nor would there have been a problem if he had a legal concealed carry license. Simply having the gun is not a crime (I assume) it only becomes a crime if you do it illegaly.
> 
> Aha, now I understand. So the minimum sentence for the _first_ offence is five years, with second or third offences being 25 years. The first article glossed over that fact.


Reasonable questions and assumptions. State laws concerning guns vary as to how a weapon must be transported and carried. No where in the articles that I have seen on this case was there any reference to the weapon being illegally owned or transported. The issue seems to be having possession of a gun *at the same time* as committing a crime, in this case, selling 8 ounces of marijuana, on three (possible only two) seperate occassions.



I would just call into question the term '_first_ offense' in your sentence, and the 'second and third offenses'. I am not sure if 'offense' is the correct term in this case or not. I would suggest; the minimum sentence for the _first *count* (on the indictment) _is five years, with the *second and third counts* being 25 years.

​I think it is a more accurate statement. I am not certain if the two statements are synonomous.




			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> Get it right, this wasn't for only selling 8 ounces of weed. Nor was it only having a gun on him "in the vicinity" nice euphemism for a concealed weapon in an ankle holster (which the article also fails to mention if it was a legally owned handgun or not). He was CONVICTED OF 16 COUNTS OF FELONIES!!!!! If you read the WHOLE sentence he got 8yrs for the drug trafficking/money laundering. Then he got 5 yrs for one count of carrying a firearm while dealing drugs, then he got another 25 yrs for the 2nd count and 25 yrs for the 3rd count. That is what is stupid is that he didn't commit one offense just one time. He comitted multiple crimes with multiple sentences, so it was not 55 yrs for a one time incident, the sentence was stacked due to multiple offenses and convictions.


Never mind that the substance in question is legal in several states for medical purposes.

The judge was forced to sentence Mr. Angelos to 55 years consecutively for the 3 gun-possession convictions. For the other 13 counts (money laundering and drug counts) in the case, Judge Cassell added 1 day to the sentence. (see (5) below). 

While there are sentencing guidelines that suggest up to 78 months for the drug counts, Judge Cassell had the discretion to impose the minimum sentence concerning the drug counts. The Judge did not have discretion at sentencing for the weapons charges.



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> I am not interested in what you think or feel about my disease, or dis-ease, if you prefer. It is irrelevant.-----My fault for trying to be human about it, you brought it up.


Actually, you brought up. I can only assume because you wanted to put yourself in the position of a 'higher authority' concerning the affects of addiction on society. ... your term was 'huge threat to society'.



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity do you work in an occupation where you see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing? Or is this an academic argument about if marijuana was legal we wouldn't have these problems?


Further, I find it ironic that you wish to demonstrate your 'humanity' toward me, where as Mr. Angelos is offered no such courtesy. How much of a 'threat to society' do you think it is that a 6 year old boy, and a 5 year old girl will grow up without their father? What impact will his incarceration have on their lives, and the lives of their mother. These children are now three times more likely to grow up in poor. This family just added to the 17% of families in Utah that are headed by a single parent.

This sentence is STUPID STUPID STUPID.



(1) http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/11_18_04judgesquestion.cfm

(2) http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN90111904.htm

(3) http://www.magicvalley.com/news/worldnation/index.asp?StoryID=11295

(4) http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=133238

(5) http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_2457265


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 20, 2004)

> No I do not work in an occupation where I see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing, but I am an alcoholic, so I know a thing or two about addiction, we can perhaps have that discussion elsewhere.


 
YOU brought it up, I didn't. How else would I know of that part of your background. I'm  not going to discuss who brought up what when you can look back and find out in black and white.



> Further, I find it ironic that you wish to demonstrate your 'humanity' toward me, where as Mr. Angelos is offered no such courtesy.


I don't find it ironic at all. You weren't convicted of dealing drugs and carrying a gun illegally (remember carrying a gun whether legally owned or not to commit crimes is a crime).  If you want someone to blame for his children blame THE GUILTY party,  he made his decisions and he was offered a very low sentence by the courts, instead of owning up to what he did and taking RESPONSIBILITY for his actions he went to trial and lost.  


I have been in our county's drug court preceedings and am very supportive of that program, again it is for people who are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to get the treatment they want instead of going to jail/prison. I feel sorry for his children, but I also feel sorry for all the people's lives he is ruining by selling drugs (like his own kids).  I also noticed that no one has brought up that some of his "character witnesses" were known gangbangers and HAVE been involved in violent crime.  Stop blaming the courts and the justice system for establishing harsh penalties for crimes...oh here is an even  better idea....DON'T COMMIT CRIMES if you don't want to go to prison for a long time.  He was a record executive, he made the choices to do this, over and over...He had NO NEED to sell drugs other than the fact that he wanted to.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 21, 2004)

*I also noticed that no one has brought up that some of his "character witnesses" were known gangbangers and HAVE been involved in violent crime.  * 

So, apparently, was the witness that got him put away for possessing a gun.

*
Stop blaming the courts and the justice system for establishing harsh penalties for crimes...*

They don't, Punisher.  Congress does that.  The legislative body makes the laws, the judicial system enforces them.

*He had NO NEED to sell drugs other than the fact that he wanted to.*

A libertarian would have a field day with this.  It boils down to people telling other people what they need to do.  Conservatives in this country are constantly saying how they think government ought not interfere with the private lives of individuals and how people ought to have freedom--and then they work to take it away from them.  You see no hypocrisy here?  

LIVE LIFE FREE...the way I tell you to.

I was reading today how a woman who was responsible for ripping American tax payers off for $6 billion will serve nine months in prison for it.  A guy who sells two bags of dope totalling about $700 serves life.  

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6872964&src=rss/topNews

I'd be willing to bet he didn't have any idea that he was committing a crime that would ruin his entire life.  I wasn't aware of the sentencing guidlines until this article came out.  As for turning down the plea bargain...I'm betting that he--indignant-- saw the outrageous injustice being done to him and thought that common sense would prevail on the part of the court.  It didn't.

I strongly urge anyone reading this to check out Eric Schlosser's "Reefer Madness."  The first essay describes the absolutely ridiculous drug laws in this country.  Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation," is an engaging writer and makes a valid point.  Where have we gone in this country when we put a man away for life for selling marijuana...yet his cell mate does eight years for killing someone with a gun?



Regards,

Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2004)

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 (Nov 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And the cost to the United States Taxpayer:
> 
> *$1,294,810.00*​​
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2004)

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 (Nov 21, 2004)

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 (Nov 21, 2004)

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 (Nov 21, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

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 (Nov 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

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


wow, this guy gives rock-bottom prices!


----------



## Adept (Nov 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

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 (Nov 22, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> _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.
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 22, 2004)

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 (Nov 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2004)

YO-G!!! You dissin my dawg???


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 22, 2004)

This gentleman's morality isn't really the issue though, guys. Whether or not 55 years in prison was an appropriate punishment for the crime he was convicted of is the issue here.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2004)

Tgace & MisterMike ... 


you wanna bet the hunter in that just killed 5 people gets off with less time?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This gentleman's morality isn't really the issue though, guys. Whether or not 55 years in prison was an appropriate punishment for the crime he was convicted of is the issue here.


They know better .... Tgace is just tweekin' the bears as he puts it. (although I have a different name for his comments). And, MisterMike, is theoretically a Libertarian. A group that in general thinks drug laws should be repealed anyhow. 

Revenge is Mine Sayth the Rightious.

Guns God & Gays. This is what we voted for. No compassion, regardless of what they claim.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2004)

Your right Dan....it just seemed like there was an attempt to paint this guy as some sort of victim. I agree that the sentence seems harsh, but like I always say, we get what we ask for. People scream "Do Something!" and the gvt. responds (to get votes primarily). 




> you wanna bet the hunter in that just killed 5 people gets off with less time?


I dunno. Its getting huge press. Wanna bet that theres not going to be a massive outcry over this 55 year sentence. Right or wrong.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 22, 2004)

> Tgace & MisterMike ...
> 
> 
> you wanna bet the hunter in that just killed 5 people gets off with less time?



With the offenses takingplace in 2 different states, probably violating State/Federal laws, and the differencein counts, I don't think we canmake that comparison.

I bet parole comes a lot quicker for drug offenses though.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> With the offenses takingplace in 2 different states, probably violating State/Federal laws, and the differencein counts, I don't think we canmake that comparison.
> 
> I bet parole comes a lot quicker for drug offenses though.


Quote ... taken directly from Judge Cassell's memo.



> The federal system does not provide the possibility of parole, but instead provides only a modest "good behavior" credit of approximately 15 % of the sentence. Assuming good behavior, Mr. Angelos' sentence will be reducted to "only" 55 years, meaning he could be released when his is 78 years old.


There will be no parole in Mr. Angelos case.

I think we can make the comparison.

Mr. Angelos ... sold 16 ounces of marijuana with a gun in his possession ... 55 years.
Chai Vang ... killed 5 while hunting ... ? ? ? ?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2004)

Will Chai Vang face federal charges??


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Will Chai Vang face federal charges??


Unknown at this point. I would guess that the state will handle Mr. Vang's case, but that is just a guess.

Mr. Angelos was convicted under the Federal System.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> They know better .... Tgace is just tweekin' the bears as he puts it. (although I have a different name for his comments).


No. The mandatory sentencing policy may very well be wrong. Lets just say its not in the interest of justice. And not make some mushy appeal to his status as father, husband, businessman, cost of incarceration etc. Theres plenty of people in those categories that have done things that deserve more than 55 years.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No. The mandatory sentencing policy may very well be wrong. Lets just say its not in the interest of justice. And not make some mushy appeal to his status as father, husband, businessman, cost of incarceration etc. Theres plenty of people in those categories that have done things that deserve more than 55 years.


I refer you to my first post.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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


Each other argument I have put forth has been to refute statement from people who feel this punishment is acceptable. 

Charge: Drain on society
Refutation: Costs for 55 years incarceration.

Charge: Drug Dealer
Refutation: Marijuana is legal is surrounding states and countries.

Charge: Threat to Society
Refutation: Businessman running a small business

Charge: Justice being served
Refutation: Injustice to his family.

Tgace,
  I challenge you to count how many times in this thread I have used the word STUPID to describe this sentence. Each time, someone makes the argument that 55 years is deserved.


----------



## Melissa426 (Nov 22, 2004)

My humble opinion:

1.  Fire the stupid lawyer who didn't tell him that federal guidelines would result in a 55 year sentence if he was convicted.  Should have accepted a plea bargain.
2.  55 years is harsh and probably unjustified and I wouldn't be surprised if it is overturned on appeal.  But ( and this is topical since the Robert Blake trial is 
starting soon)... as the song says "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

3.  Small businessman, yeah right.
 One reference from a medical journal about the consequences of marijuana use.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/01/21/national0117EST0427.DTL&nl=fix

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 22, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> One reference from a medical journal about the consequences of marijuana use.
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/01/21/national0117EST0427.DTL&nl=fix



Melissa,

Would you be willing to provide comparable references for alcohol use?  Tobacco?

Thanks.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> 1. Fire the stupid lawyer who didn't tell him that federal guidelines would result in a 55 year sentence if he was convicted. Should have accepted a plea bargain.


The offer by the government was *15 years* in jail for selling two 8 ounce packets of marijuana and one count of having a gun in his possession. Mr. Angelos decided against the plea.

The government then decided it was going to seek prosecution on 5 weapons charges, for a total of 105 years imprisonment, Mr. Angelos attempted to re-open negotiations for the plea bargain. The government refused.

One of the 'issues' with mandatory sentencing, the prosecuting attorney's have great leeway in deciding what charges they are going to bring against an accused.


----------



## Melissa426 (Nov 23, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Melissa,
> 
> Would you be willing to provide comparable references for alcohol use? Tobacco?
> 
> Thanks.


:-offtopic 
Yeah, but we're getting off topic. Are you interested in starting a new thread about the legalization of marijuana?

This is basically the entire abstract from the article I linked above. I added the highlights.


Peace,
Melissa

*Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls *


[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Michael T. Lynskey, PhD; Andrew C. Heath, DPhil; Kathleen K. Bucholz, PhD; Wendy S. Slutske, PhD; Pamela A. F. Madden, PhD; Elliot C. Nelson, MD; Dixie J. Statham, MA; Nicholas G. Martin, PhD [/font]


[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]_JAMA._ 2003;289:427-433. [/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]*Context *Previous studies have reported that early initiation of cannabis (marijuana) use is a significant risk factor for other drug use and drug-related problems. 

*Objective *To examine whether the association between early cannabis use and subsequent progression to use of other drugs and drug abuse/dependence persists after controlling for genetic and shared environmental influences. 

*Design *Cross-sectional survey conducted in 1996-2000 among an Australian national volunteer sample of 311 young adult (median age, 30 years) monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs discordant for early cannabis use (before age 17 years). 

*Main Outcome Measures *Self-reported subsequent nonmedical use of prescription sedatives, hallucinogens, cocaine/other stimulants, and opioids; abuse or dependence on these drugs (including cannabis abuse/dependence); and alcohol dependence. 

*Results *Individuals who used cannabis by age 17 years had odds of other drug use, alcohol dependence, and drug abuse/dependence that were 2.1 to 5.2 times higher than those of their co-twin, who did not use cannabis before age 17 years. [/font]Controlling for known risk factors (early-onset alcohol or tobacco use, parental conflict/separation, childhood sexual abuse, conduct disorder, major depression, and social anxiety) had only negligible effects on [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]these results. These associations did not differ significantly between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. 

*Conclusions *Associations between early cannabis use and later drug use and abuse/dependence cannot solely be explained by common predisposing genetic or shared environmental factors. The association may arise from the effects of the peer and social context within which cannabis is used and obtained. In particular, early access to and use of cannabis may reduce perceived barriers against the use of other illegal drugs and provide access to these drugs. [/font]


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 23, 2004)

I do not see the relevance of this article to the discussion.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 23, 2004)

A one hour radio program about Mandatory Minimum and Sentencing Guidelines.

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/11/20041119_a_main.asp


----------

