First time offender sold pain killers to friend, faces 25 years in jail

[DGuller]

Just for comparison, in Soviet Union, the bastion of freedom that it was, the maximum prison sentence for any crime was 15 years (except for the rare cases where death penalty was applicable).

[derspiess]

Just for comparison, in Soviet Union, the bastion of freedom that it was, the maximum prison sentence for any crime was 15 years (except for the rare cases where death penalty was applicable).

WELL THEN BY ALL MEANS GO BACK.




Anyway, that's a bit misleading, isn't it?  Couldn't they put you in a psychiatric facility indefinitely if you were politically 'dangerous'?  And prison conditions there were (are) a lot tougher than here.

[DGuller]

Just for comparison, in Soviet Union, the bastion of freedom that it was, the maximum prison sentence for any crime was 15 years (except for the rare cases where death penalty was applicable).

WELL THEN BY ALL MEANS GO BACK.




Anyway, that's a bit misleading, isn't it?  Couldn't they put you in a psychiatric facility indefinitely if you were politically 'dangerous'?  And prison conditions there were (are) a lot tougher than here.

Just putting things in perspective, to highlight how abnormal it is by world standards for Americans to be comfortable with prison sentences of multiple decades.

[dps]

What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.

No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.

Bingo. I don't see how minimum or automatic penalties are found constitutional.

Punishments that are cruel and unusual are unconstitutional.  But if they're automatic, they aren't going to be unusual, now are they?

[Martinus]

What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.

No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.

Bingo. I don't see how minimum or automatic penalties are found constitutional.

Punishments that are cruel and unusual are unconstitutional.  But if they're automatic, they aren't going to be unusual, now are they?

Not sure if you are being facetious, but my objection to them is grounded more in the fact that this is essentially the legislative usurping the power of the judicature.

[dps]

What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.

No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.

Bingo. I don't see how minimum or automatic penalties are found constitutional.

Punishments that are cruel and unusual are unconstitutional.  But if they're automatic, they aren't going to be unusual, now are they?

Not sure if you are being facetious, but my objection to them is grounded more in the fact that this is essentially the legislative usurping the power of the judicature.

The legislative branch has always had the power to establish the penalty for a crime.  They can chose to draft a statute that gives the judiciary more or less discretion in sentencing, but the judiciary has never had absolute discretion.

There are some exceptions--for example, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that make the death penalty automatic for 1st degree murder are unconstitutional--but in general, the judiciary hasn't contested the legislative power in this area.

[crazy canuck]

The legislative branch has always had the power to establish the penalty for a crime. 

The legislative branch has always had the power to establish stupid laws.  Mandatory sentencing laws are but one example of the legislative branch exercising that power.

[Neil]

Just putting things in perspective, to highlight how abnormal it is by world standards for Americans to be comfortable with prison sentences of multiple decades.

Why would an American care about world standards?

[crazy canuck]

The fact that the fiscal burden to the taxpayer features prominently in the article is interesting. It seems pretty irrelevant compared to depriving a man of his liberty for a very long time for a non violent first offense. That suggests a very amoral, solely fiscal view on this. If money is the only way to argue about cases like this, people seem to lack empathy and respect for what is supposedly America's core value, freedom.

I understand your point but I think the fiscal argument is also important from a social policy perspective.  The argument that it makes no sense to remove a productive member from society and have the rest of society pay for his incarceration of 25 years for such a minimal offence is obvious.

[Zanza]

Of course, but the effect on society is of less concern to me than the effect on the individual in question.